`It is therefore both in the German and in the Dutch interest...`

'It is therefore both in the German and in the
Dutch interest...'
Dutch-German relations after the Great War. Interwoven economies and political détente,
1918-1933
Jeroen Euwe
‘Het is dus zoowel een Duitsch als een Nederlandsch belang…’
Hendrik Colijn aan de Raad van Bijstand van Economische Zaken, Departement
Buitenlandsche Zaken, Den Haag, 28-2-1920.
'It is therefore both in the German and in the
Dutch interest...'
Dutch-German relations after the Great War. Interwoven economies and
political détente, 1918-1931
‘Het is dus zoowel een Duitsch als een Nederlandsch belang…’
Nederlands-Duitse betrekkingen na de Eerste Wereldoorlog. Verweven economieën en politieke
detente, 1918-1931
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de
Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam
op gezag van de
rector magnificus
prof.dr. H.G. Schmidt
en volgens besluit van het College voor Promoties.
De openbare verdediging zal plaatsvinden op
vrijdag 21 december 2012 om 15.30 uur
door
Jilles Jeroen Euwe
geboren te Vlaardingen
Promotiecommissie:
Promotor:
Prof.dr. H.A.M.Klemann
Overige leden:
Prof.dr. A. de Jong
Prof.dr. J.P.B. Jonker
Prof.dr. P.T. van de Laar
Contents
Acknowledgements
i
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.1
Introduction
1.2
The Dutch-German economic bonds
1.3
The historiography of Dutch-German (economic) relations
1.4
Theoretical framework: interdependence theory
Proving themselves right: liberal and neo-realist models
1.5
Interdependence theories: relevance to this study
Complicating factors
1.6
Central research question, sub-questions, and composition of the study
4
7
11
17
20
24
26
29
Chapter 2 – The Netherlands and Germany, 1860-1931
2.1
Introduction
2.2
The Dutch and German economies since the 1860s
2.3
The German economy up to World War One
2.4
The Dutch economy up to World War One
The Netherlands: an open economy
The First World War: the vulnerability of an open economy
2.5
Germany during the first post-war years: political and economic troubles
Political stability and economic recovery
The golden twenties?
Bookends to an era: political instability and economic crisis
2.6
The Netherlands after the war
2.7
Economic interdependence and interwoven economies: consequences
2.8
Conclusion
31
32
35
38
42
44
47
51
53
58
62
67
71
Chapter 3 – Monetary and financial relations
3.1
Introduction
3.2
The development of Amsterdam as an international financial centre
3.3
The First World War
The effects of the war on Dutch-German economic relations
Financing trade
3.4
Foreign banks in the Netherlands
3.5
The impact of German inflation and depreciation, 1918-1924
German foreign direct investments
The Coal and Credit Treaty of 1920
The second wave of German investments
Dutch reactions to the German crisis
3.6
The development of the Amsterdam capital market
3.7
The development of the Amsterdam money market
The foreign exchange market
The acceptance market
3.8
The Depression
72
76
79
82
84
90
96
98
101
106
107
112
116
117
119
129
1
3.9
3.10
Financial services and political relations
Conclusion
132
140
Chapter 4 – Dutch-German trade relations
4.1
Introduction
4.2
Dutch-German trade relations up to the First World War
The development of Dutch international trade
German international trade
Dutch-German trade
4.3
The First World War and its immediate aftermath: 1914-1920
The changing structure of German foreign trade
Changing German trade relations
Changing Dutch-German trade relations
The nature of Dutch-German trade
4.4
Dutch-German political relations
Dutch ascendancy
A new German trade policy
The effects of the new German trade policy
A conflict about butter
A shift in Dutch trade policy
4.5
Conclusion
143
144
144
146
147
150
155
158
159
167
173
174
179
189
194
198
201
Chapter 5 - Transport
5.1
Introduction
5.2
Rotterdam and the German hinterland
5.3
Transport within Germany
5.4
Transport within the Netherlands
5.5
Competition between modes of transport
Transport policy
The German Seehafenausnahmetarife
5.6
Competition on the Rhine
5.7
Competition with other ports
5.8
Conclusion
206
208
214
220
224
224
226
238
243
251
Chapter 6 – Diplomatic relations
6.1
Introduction
6.2
Dutch promotion of German interests in international politics
6.3
War damages
6.4
Border dispute
6.5
Conclusions
253
254
256
258
262
Chapter 7 – Conclusions
7.1
Intertwined economies
The economic consequences of war and peace
Post-war trade relations
The Dutch as financier to Germany
263
264
268
269
2
7.2
7.3
7.4
Transport flows
270
German economic policies and their effect on Dutch-German relations
272
Further trade conflicts
274
The resilience of Dutch-German interdependence and its effect on political relations
276
Interdependence theory
278
Sources
Archives
Published sources
Newspapers
Websites
Literature
Summary in Dutch
Curriculum Vitae
280
280
288
288
290
291
329
344
3
Acknowledgements
Working on a dissertation is a pleasure and a privilege. To be paid to do research on
an immensely interesting subject, mull things over, and then put the results of all
this on paper is an experience that I can heartily recommend to anyone who is by
nature a nosy and inquisitive person.
I was lucky to have as my promotor Hein Klemann. He was always there for
me, whether it was to discuss avenues for further research, discussing chapters of
the thesis, and during the final stages of writing the thesis by helping me to keep
focused. I hope one day to be able to repay him for his infectious enthusiasm and
the interest he has shown both on a professional and personal level.
Most of the drafts for chapters of this were discussed at the home of Hein,
were I was also fortunate to get feedback from Martijn Lak, my fellow PhD-candidate
who worked on the period 1945-1952 for the same research project that this
dissertation is a part of, and Ben Wubs, assistant professor at Erasmus University
Rotterdam. These meetings were always long but never tiring, always highly
motivating and just plain fun. I have fond memories of the talks we had over one of
Hein’s delicious home-cooked lunches and dinners.
A special word of thanks is also due to the always-friendly Theresa
Oostvogels, who found the time amidst her heavy workload to help me navigate the
many administrative tasks that come with finishing a dissertation.
All Dutch PhD-candidates are required to complete a course at one of the research
schools. The nature of my research meant that I was fortunate to attend the
Posthumus PhD-course and its European counterpart ESTER during 2006 and 2007.
An important part of this course deals with determining the scope of the research,
formulating research questions and tightening the structure of the dissertation. To
do so, experts from each field of enquiry as well as fellow students are asked to
review the various papers that the students have written about their plans. Although
I am grateful to everyone who has commented on these papers, a number of people
i
readily spring to mind. First there is Ben Gales, who organized the course for the
Posthumus Institute, and who always had good advice. Then there is Herman de
Jong, who suggested I look at how a system such as the Dutch-German economic
interdependence reacts to severe shocks, such as the First World War. Similarly good
advice was given to me by Mark Spoerer, who introduced me to new methods to
gauge interdependence, and which have been of great use during the course of my
research.
Presenting research findings at conferences is always rewarding. Two
particular instances stand out. My very first findings on the role of the Amsterdam
financial centre were presented in January 2008 in Paris, at a conference on financial
centres as competing clusters. There, I presented a paper entitled ‘Amsterdam as an
international financial centre, 1914-1933: a consequence of interwoven economies?’
A few days after my presentation, I received a detailed analysis with hints for further
research from Joost Jonker, an expert on the matter, who was also present in Paris
(and a recurring presence at many other conferences that I attended). His notes
were a great help in expanding that initial ten-page draft into the chapter it has
become in this dissertation. At the second conference of the Transnational Rhine
Network and at a later presentation at a research seminar at the Erasmus Research
Institute of Management I presented a paper on transport flows between Germany,
the Netherlands, Belgium and France. At the seminar, Monika Dommann gave me
many helpful suggestions for further research, while after the seminar in Rotterdam
Hugo van Driel took the time for a long and fruitful discussion about the paper I had
presented. Such meetings with like-minded people, at conferences, in the archives,
and other get-togethers are a welcome change from what can sometimes be days
spent alone, writing. Months were of course spent in various archives, both in the
Netherlands and in Germany, usually surrounded by other enthusiasts, diligently
ploughing the archives. Everywhere I was extended a friendly welcome, and I hope
to revisit them all in the future.
ii
Although writing a dissertation is a joy and a privilege, it can also be engrossing to
such an extent that the social aspects of life can suffer, especially when there are
deadlines to be met. I would be remiss if I did not thank my loving parents, my
wonderful girlfriend Marjolein, and all of my friends for their understanding and
support. Prepare for dinner invitations and such!
iii
Jeroen Euwe 1
Chapter 1 - Introduction
1.1
Introduction
‘Just why do the Netherlands still exist?’ was the provocative question fielded by
Hein A. M. Klemann in his inaugural address at Erasmus University Rotterdam in
March 2006.1 In his lecture, Klemann expanded on his long-standing interest in
Dutch-German economic relations to argue that the Netherlands managed to take
part in the economic integration that accompanied Germany’s political unification
process during the nineteenth century, and asked the pertinent question how the
Netherlands managed to do so without taking part in the German political
unification. As the major European powers became entangled in alliances during the
last two decades of the nineteenth century and the first years of the twentieth
century, the German Reich was faced with – should war break out – a two-front war,
with the French in the west and the Russians in the east. This problem was
addressed in the Schlieffen Plan of 1905, which called for a swift sweep by German
forces through the Netherlands, Belgium and France. After defeating the French, the
German army would be redeployed in the east to face the by then mobilised Russian
troops. However, by the beginning of the 20th century, the importance and nature of
the Dutch-German economic ties was such that German Chief of Staff Helmuth von
Moltke – who amended the Plan in 1906 – decided to respect Dutch neutrality,
because – in his words – ‘...it will be of the utmost importance to have a country, by
means of the Netherlands, whose neutrality will allow us to continue to import and
export. It should be our windpipe, allowing us to breathe.’2
Dutch territorial sovereignty may not have been compromised – save for the
occupation during the Second World War – but the economic bonds with its
neighbour were – and continued to be – so intense, that F.W. Boterman in his 1998
inaugural lecture at Groningen University argued that they had an important
influence on Dutch foreign policy.3 Given the words of Von Moltke, it may well have
1
Hein A.M. Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog? Nederland-Duitsland: Economische integratie en
politieke consequenties 1860-2000 (Rotterdam 2006).
2
Cited in: Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog? 46.
3
F.W. Boterman, Duitsland als Nederlands probleem: de Nederlands-Duitse betrekkingen tussen openheid en
eigenheid. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar in de Nieuwste Duitse
4
Jeroen Euwe 1
been that German foreign policy both before and after the First World War was also
influenced by these mutually beneficial economic bonds. It is this link between
strong economic bonds and their effects on political relations that is the subject of
this thesis. It focuses on an analysis of the evolution of the economic relations
between the Netherlands and Germany, and the consequences of these ties for their
political relations during the period 1918-1931. Interdependence theories –
originating in the social sciences – will be used as a guiding theory in this analysis.
Not only do these theories provide theoretical insights in the political consequences
of interwoven (or: interdependent) economies, they also provide us with statistical
models, which may help quantify the level of interdependence or at least indicate
which kind of economic bonds are most likely to influence political relations. During
the years between 1918 and 1931, Germany underwent important territorial
changes, political turmoil, an invasion and partial occupation, was in the grip of two
major national and two major worldwide economic crises, experienced a
hyperinflation of legendary proportions, was initially severely limited in its ability to
form its own international trade policy, and saw important changes in its economy.
The same period, however, also saw a fast economic recovery and formidable
capital flows to and from Germany, a large part of the latter coming from – or being
moved through – the Netherlands. Needless to say, the influence of these very
diverse factors on the Dutch-German economic bonds was great, and it will be
argued that both countries were, in fact, in economic terms interdependent. This
interdependence meant that while at times the political goals of both nations in the
international arena aligned, their trade policies could lead to tense conflicts.
Being a small, internationally oriented economy, the Netherlands benefited
from unimpeded international trade. However, due to a variety of reasons Germany
– and much of the rest of the world – instituted progressively more protectionist
trade policies. Trade policy was not the only source of conflict between the two
neighbours, however, as Germany also tried to direct traffic away from the Dutch
ports towards the German ports of Hamburg and Bremen, while in the more strictly
political arena the long-standing issue of the border in the Ems-Dollard region was
Geschiedenis, in het bijzonder de Nederlands-Duitse betrekkingen, aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op dinsdag
27 oktober 1998 (Groningen 1998) 11.
5
Jeroen Euwe 1
still unresolved, and the Netherlands sought reparation for damages incurred due to
German acts of war. Some of these conflicts were settled amicably, while others led
to diplomatic crises. It is exactly this connection between the strong Dutch-German
economic bonds and how – or whether – they influenced the political ties between
the two countries during the Weimar Republic that forms the central question of
this thesis. Before delving more deeply into the major and minor research questions,
however, it is wise – given the choice to use interdependence theories as a
theoretical framework for this analysis – to evaluate why and how these theories are
relevant tools in this study. To fully understand the relevance of these theories, it is
necessary to start with a short overview of some basic aspects of the Dutch-German
economic bonds.
6
Jeroen Euwe 1
1.2
The Dutch-German economic bonds
For both the Netherlands and Germany, the mutual economic ties were stronger
than those with any other country. While trade and transport were important in
Dutch ties with both of its two most important economic partners – Great Britain
and Germany –, there were other factors that made the bond with its eastern
neighbour intrinsically stronger. Some of those were on an incidental level, and can
be seen as indicators for the importance of these economic bonds: in the period
1918-1933 these included the role of the Dutch as major financier for German trade
and industry. On a structural level, these consisted of transport services for the
Rhine region – not only inland shipping and railroad freight, but also sea freight –
and a significant trans-border workforce. These were a direct result of the needs of
the coal-based Rheinisch-Westphalian industrial revolution that started in the 1860s.
One can therefore advance the argument that path dependence played a role in the
development of Dutch-German economic interdependence, or to put it in other
terms: the intertwining of the Dutch and German economies. That this path
dependence was accompanied by significant lock-in effects is likely when one
considers the incidental factor of the Dutch role as the most important financier of
German trade and industry between 1918 and 1931: when after the First World War
the German economy was in dire straits, Dutch financial and political circles – in
close contact with Dutch trade and industry – were the first to offer financial
assistance to the stricken German economy, as a quick German economic recovery
was considered to be essential for the Dutch economy. The structure and
development of trade and associated services such as finance – credit, insurance,
and foreign exchange market etcetera – also points to this conclusion. For their part,
German industry and trade were highly dependent on the Dutch in matters of
transport, trade, and after the First World War also finance. Before the war, the two
main industrial centres in Germany were located in the Ruhr – just across the border
with the Netherlands – and in Silesia – near Germany’s eastern border. After the
war, Germany not only lost its eastern industrial centre, but also a significant
amount of its agricultural lands and ore deposits. This resulted in a greater reliance
on imports of food and raw materials, and an increased importance of the Ruhr
industry to its economy. All the aspects that had contributed to Dutch-German
7
Jeroen Euwe 1
interdependence – transport, Dutch exports of foodstuffs, as well as other trade and
related services – now became even more important. By that the outbreak of the
First World War, Dutch-German economic ties – that had become progressively
stronger since the German industrialization started in the 1860s – exhibited such a
structural character that they can be considered to have been not only
interdependent, but also proved highly resilient to external shocks.
The importance of trade – and thereby the importance of the economic ties
with the outside world, particularly with Germany – to the Dutch economy becomes
clear when one examines the ratio of exports and imports to total gross domestic
product (GDP). This is a much-used indicator,4 which has most recently been used by
the economist Paul Krugman to investigate transnational economic ties. In 1995,
Krugman introduced the term ‘Supertrading Economy’ to describe countries whose
exports totalled over fifty percent of their GDP.5 Krugman states that this has
become possible only recently, as modern world trade has several aspects that have
hitherto been unknown, the most important of which are intra-trade – the trade in
similar goods between similar countries – and the slicing up of the value chain.
Krugman points out that finished products used to be fairly standardized, but that
nowadays products have become much more differentiated: Japanese are driving
German BMW’s and Germans are driving Japanese Honda’s. These are not the only
changes in manufacturing. Production used to be a fairly integrated process, with
raw materials entering the plant at one end, and finished products coming out at the
other end. Much of today’s goods, however, are assembled from components,
which in turn have been produced by processing subcomponents, all of which have
been sourced from different subcontractors across the globe. At all these
intermediate stages, value has been added and exported. Krugman argues that it is
this ‘slicing up of the value chain’ that enabled world trade to grow to its present
4
The calculation of this foreign trade-quote varies, mostly to deal with the absence of data: Krugman uses
exports as a percentage of the GDP, whereas the trade-quote is usually given as imports plus exports, divided by
the GDP. There are variations on the latter, for instance Jurgen Wulf – author of a study on German foreign trade
since 1850 – uses the above formula but replaces GDP – as there are no data on the German GDP before 1918 –
with net national income plus imports. Whereas Krugman includes services, Wulf excludes these. Paul Krugman,
‘Growing World Trade: Causes and Consequences.’ Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1995 (1), 327-377,
here 334; Jurgen Wulf, Der Deutsche Außenhandel seit 1850. Entwicklung, Strukturwandlungen und Beziehungen
zum Wirtschaftswachstum (Stuttgart 1968) passim.
5
Krugman, ‘Growing World Trade’, 334.
8
Jeroen Euwe 1
height: instead of a product being exported once, as used to be the case, now its
components have been exported several times before the finished product even
exists. At all these stages, the added value has been counted as net exports.
Therefore, by the time the finished product is exported it has already contributed
several times its value in total exports. According to Krugman, it is this process that
makes the existence of ‘supertrading economies’ possible, as he regards it as
‘virtually certain that at least 60 percent of the employment and value added even in
small countries is generated in non-tradable sectors; thus a trade share of much
more than 30-40 percent can only arise when exports involve adding a small amount
of value to intermediate goods’.6 At the time, Krugman identified six economies as
being supertrading economies: Singapore, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Ireland, Belgium
and the Netherlands. However, of these six supertraders, the Belgian and Dutch
economies are the only economies that cannot be characterized as ‘low-wage
manufacturing platforms’. As will have become clear from the way a supertrading
economy comes into being, it is a virtual prerequisite for it to be such a low-wage
manufacturing platform. Krugman explains the emergence of the Netherlands and
Belgium as supertrading economies by letting go of the traditional view of a national
economy, and instead viewing them as part of an integrated transnational economy
comprising – apart from the Netherlands and Belgium – Northern France, and
centred on the Ruhr and nearby parts of Germany. In effect, by identifying this
transnational economic region and stating the Ruhr (and nearby German regions) to
be at its centre, Krugman makes the argument for the existence of economic
interdependence between (this part of) Germany and the Netherlands, Belgium and
northern France areas in recent times.
Although Krugman identifies the Netherlands as a supertrading economy
during the latter part of the twentieth century, he couples this to the notion that the
emergence of supertrading economies is one of the ‘four new [italics by Krugman,
J.E.] aspects of modern world trade – new in the sense that they did not have
counterparts in the previous age of the global economy’.7 All four new aspects are
all closely linked to each other, the other three being the emergence of intra-trade,
6
7
Ibidem 335.
Ibidem 332.
9
Jeroen Euwe 1
the slicing up of the value chain, and low-wage manufacturing exporters. However,
as he himself noted, the Netherlands and Belgium are distinctly different from other
supertrading economies, being part of a transnational economic region instead of
being low-wage manufacturing platforms. In fact, as Hein Klemann noted in his 2006
inaugural address at Erasmus University, already by 1864 the Netherlands satisfied
Krugman’s criteria for a supertrading economy.8 As noted earlier, Klemann considers
the extensive Dutch-German economic ties to be at the root of this Dutch economic
transformation into a supertrading economy, which themselves were the result of
the industrialization that picked up in the 1850s in both Germany and the
Netherlands. German industrialization concentrated in Silesia near the eastern
border, and the Ruhr region near the western border. In effect, this meant that
much of the transport of raw materials and goods was done via neighbouring
countries, leading Klemann to the question just how much of Dutch economic
growth hinged on the developing German economy. In doing so, Klemann comes
close – he deems more research is necessary to prove this – to Krugman’s idea of a
transnational economic region being at the root of the Dutch supertrading economy,
and places the origins of this region in the late nineteenth century.
Klemann further extends the argument, asking whether the Dutch might
have taken part in the economic integration that accompanied the formation of the
German Kaiserreich. If so, it begs the question whether a national Dutch economy
even came into being. Neo-functionalists pointed out that spill-over effect of
economic integration usually results in political integration. According to Klemann
one should consider the question how the Netherlands managed to avoid becoming
part of the German Kaiserreich. As it is widely accepted that economic bonds
influence political relations, it is surprising to find that although Dutch-German
political relations have been extensively studied, the study of their economic ties has
been largely neglected, while the link between the two usually gets no more than
token attention.
8
Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog? 14.
10
Jeroen Euwe 1
1.3
The historiography of Dutch-German (economic) relations
The closeness of Dutch-German economic relations has long been recognized, not
just by Germans (see for instance the quote by Von Moltke) or the Dutch – for
instance in their promoting of a German economic recovery after the First World
War –, but also by other parties, such as the British. That such outsiders were not
blind to the political consequences of such close economic ties is apparent from a
message from the British envoy in The Hague, just after the end of the First World
War. In 1919 the envoy warned that there was a real danger that the Netherlands
might fall into the German sphere of influence because German businessmen were
settling there en masse, because the Netherlands were so conveniently close and
‘the fact that there are now so few places in the world to which Germans can go’.9
By the end of the century, views on Dutch-German relations had not really changed:
in his 1998 inaugural lecture ‘Germany as a Dutch problem’, Frits Boterman stated
that the Netherlands are – and were – intertwined with Germany on an economic
and financial level to such an extent, that this had an important influence on Dutch
foreign policy.10 Eight years later, Hein Klemann stated in that insight in the nature
and scope of the Dutch-German economic ties is indispensable if one is to
understand their political relations. He then went on to ask whether the Dutch were
economically dependent, or were of such importance to Germany that because of
this bond the Netherlands was in a stronger political position than its small
geographical size and limited population warranted.11 Given these periodic
affirmations on the mutual economic links and their political significance, one might
reasonably expect an extensive historiography on the subject. However, there is not:
in the existing literature hardly any of these questions comes up for systematic
discussion or analysis. The literature either focuses on political relations, or on
economic bonds. Whenever the links between the two are discussed, it is usually
within the context of a case study.12
9
J. Houwink ten Cate, ‘De mannen van de daad’ en Duitsland, 1919-1939 (Den Haag 1995) 75.
Boterman, Duitsland als Nederlands probleem, 11.
11
Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog?, 9.
12
See: J. Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife tijdens de Weimarrepubliek 1919-1933.’ In: Joh.
de Vries, Ondernemende geschiedenis. 22 Opstellen geschreven bij het afscheid van Mr. H. van Riel als voorzitter
van de vereniging Het Nederlandsch Economisch-Historisch Archief (The Hague 1977) 321–343; J.P.B. Jonker,
‘Koopman op een dwaalspoor. De Seehafenausnahmetarife in de betrekkingen tussen Nederland en Duitsland
10
11
Jeroen Euwe 1
Taking a closer look at the literature on Dutch-German economic and/or
political relations, the Second World War seems to mark a watershed in two areas:
an increase in sheer number of studies, and a shift in focus. Most likely inspired by
the problematic and traumatic recent past, the Dutch-German relations became a
far more popular subject in (academic) studies than ever before. However, apart
from some dissertations and the study by P.A. Blaisse on Dutch trade policy in the
interwar years, the literature of the immediate post-war period focused almost
exclusively on cultural and especially political relations.13 Given that the resumption
of trade between the two countries was critical to the recovery of the Dutch
economy, the attention given to this subject at that particular time is quite
understandable. It is equally understandable that – once economic recovery was
well under way – political and cultural factors would come to dominate the
discourse. Authors such as F. Wielenga, H.W. von der Dunk, H. Lademacher, and
H.J.G Beunders have published extensively on post-war political and cultural
relations, while – save for the works of H.A.M. Klemann, K. van Paridon and a few
studies by the Dutch Bureau for Statistics (CBS) or similar government bureaus – the
economic relations have not been studied in the same in-depth fashion.14 This is all
the more surprising, since in 1993 the Bureau for Economic Analysis – the Central
Plan Bureau (CPB) a government agency – started a study on the bilateral relations
because of what it described as ‘the strong mutual relatedness between both
economies – for instance in the monetary field and with respect to trade – and the
aan het begin van de jaren twintig.’ Jaarboek van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken 1988/1989 (The Hague
1989) 181–201.
13
C.H.J. van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel und die deutsche Agrareinfuhr in den Jahren 19201940 (Mainz 1953); P.A. Blaisse, De Nederlandse Handelspolitiek, (Utrecht 1948); J. Wemelsfelder, Het herstel
van de Duits-Nederlandse economische betrekkingen na de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Leiden 1954).
14
See: M. Brands (ed.), In de schaduw van Duitsland. Een discussie (Baarn 1979); H.J.G. Beunders and H.H. Selier,
Argwaan en profijt. Nederland en Duitsland 1945-1981 (Amsterdam 1983); H.W. von der Dunk, Twee buren, twee
culturen: opstellen over Nederland en Duitsland (Amsterdam 1994); F. Wielenga, West-Duitsland: partner uit
noodzaak. Nederland en de Bondsrepubliek 1949-1955 (Utrecht 1989); F. Wielenga, Van vijand tot bondgenoot.
Nederland en Duitsland na 1945 (Amsterdam 1999); A. Beening, Tussen bewondering en verguizing. Duitsland in
de Nederlandse schoolboeken, 1750-2000 (Amsterdam 2001); C.W.A.M. van Paridon, E.K. Greup and A. Ketting,
De handelsbetrekkingen tussen Nederland en de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland (The Hague 1982); C.W.A.M. van
Paridon, Profijtelijke relatie of knellende band? Over economische ontwikkelingen in Duitsland en de invloed op
Nederland (Amsterdam 1993); A. Gras, ‘Onze Handel met Duitsland.’ Maandstatistiek van de internationale
handel, jrg.4 (1999) nr. 8, 9; Centraal Plan Bureau, Agricultural relationships between Germany and the
Netherlands (The Hague 1995); Centraal Plan Bureau (CPB), Challenging neighbours; rethinking German and
Dutch economic institutions (The Hague 1997); Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Aan het
buitenland gehecht. Over verankering en strategie van Nederlands buitenlandbeleid (Amsterdam 2010).
12
Jeroen Euwe 1
vital importance of Germany for Dutch economic performance’.15 It would take until
1998 – when Boterman held his inaugural lecture at Groningen University – for the
academic world to be reminded of the political ramifications of the close DutchGerman economic relations. Even so, eight years later, Klemann – long-time
researcher of the Dutch economy and Dutch-German economic relations – still had
to conclude that ‘the political relations between the Netherlands and Germany have
been researched many times. Much less is known about the economic links.
Additionally, what has been written is fragmentary and lacks an overview’.16 Since
then, Martijn Lak has filled the void for the important decade following the Second
World War with his dissertation on German-Dutch relations during the period 19451957.17
Reviewing the literature that deals with this subject in the pre-World War Two
period, the relations with the Weimar Republic remain a lacuna. A number of studies
have appeared on Dutch relations with the Kaiserreich by both German as well as
Dutch authors, spanning cultural, political and economic subjects, and even – such
as in the works by Beening and Frey – reviewing the links between the latter two.18
The 1930s have also received their fair share of attention, both in economic bonds
between the two neighbouring countries, as well as political and cultural relations. 19
Considering the many upheavals during the period 1918-1933 – two worldwide
15
Centraal Plan Bureau (CPB), Agricultural relationships between Germany and the Netherlands (The Hague
1995) 3. On the changes in the structure of the Ruhr area from the 1980s: R. Slotboom, Noordrijn-Westfalen:
informatie over politiek, economie en maatschappij (Amsterdam 2001).
16
Boterman, Duitsland als Nederlands probleem; Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog? 8.
Boterman also publishes on cultural aspects. See for instance: F.W. Boterman. 'Van Duitse leermeesters,
generaties en lessen uit de geschiedenis'. Tijdschrift voor Geschiedenis, 119 (4)2006, 468-481.
17
M. Lak, Because We Need Them... German-Dutch relations after the occupation: economic inevitability and
political acceptance, 1945-1957 (Rotterdam 2011).
18
A. Beening, Onder de vleugels van de adelaar. De Duitse buitenlandse politiek ten aanzien van Nederland in de
periode 1890-1914 (PhD-thesis Amsterdam 1994); M. Frey, Der Erste Weltkrieg und die Niederlande. Ein
neutraler Staat im politischen und wirtschaftlichen Kalkül der Großmächte (Berlin 1998); R. Loos, Deutschland
zwischen ‘Schwärmertum’ und ‘Realpolitik’. Die Sicht der niederländischen Kulturzeitschrift De Gids auf die
politische Kultur des Nachbarn Preußen-Deutschland 1837-1914 (Münster 2007); J.C. Boogman, Nederland en de
Duitse bond 1815-1851. Twee delen (Groningen 1955), J.F.E. Bläsing, Das goldene Delta und sein eisernes
Hinterland. Von niederländisch-preuβischen zu deutsch-niederlandischen Wirtschaftsbeziehungen (Leiden 1973).
19
Hein A.M. Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire. De economische betrekkingen van Nederland met zijn
belangrijkste handelspartners, Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië en België en de Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 19291936 (Amsterdam 1990); Hein A.M. Klemann, ‘The International Economic Relations of Small Countries in the
1930s. Belgium and the Netherlands.’ In: Timo Myllyntaus (ed.), Economic crises and reconstructuring in history.
Experiences of small countries (St. Katharinen 1998) 145-168; Hein A.M. Klemann, ‘The ‘Tommies’ or the ‘Jerries’.
Dutch trade problems in the Inter-war period.’ In: N. Ashton and D. Hellema (eds.), Unspoken Allies. Anglo-Dutch
Relations since 1780 (Amsterdam 2001).
13
Jeroen Euwe 1
economic crises, the establishment of the Weimar republic and its political and
economic troubles to name just a few – it is therefore all the more puzzling that it
represents such a lacuna in historiography. Not only did the Dutch-German
economic bonds prove to be resilient, the political relations were at times strenuous,
while parts of Dutch popular opinion were at times strongly anti-German.
A large part of the contemporary Dutch literature on the bonds with WeimarGermany focuses on cultural relations, while very little attention is paid to the
political relations. The German literature on the period deals mostly with political
relations with the Entente, and the reparations payments.20 If any attention is given
to the Dutch-German political relations, like in Horst Lademacher’s Zwei ungleiche
Nachbarn, it focuses on problems surrounding the asylum the Dutch granted the
former German emperor. After he mentioned that, he immediately jumps to the
Dutch policy of neutrality during the Nazi-period, however.21
In contrast, the Dutch economic ties with the Weimar Republic have always
been a popular subject. Already during the 1920s, studies concerning the rise of
Amsterdam as a financial centre appeared, as well as studies on the importance of
the Netherlands as lender, supplier of raw materials and (semi-)manufactured
goods, and as a buyer of German goods.22 A good example is the dissertation by
C.H.J. van Beukering on Dutch-German trade, and the trade in agricultural products
in particular. Using statistical data – mostly derived from the Statistisches Jahrbuch
für das deutsche Reich – Van Beukering even went as far as making a start at an
analysis of the mutual dependence of the two economies, which unfortunately is
focused on trade and lacks a clear view on interdependence.23 The role of
Amsterdam as a financial centre, the use of the Seehafenausnahmetarife and the
Coal & Credit Treaty of 1920 as instruments for trade policy continued to receive
20
See amongst many others: K.H. Pohl, Weimars Wirtschaft und die Außenpolitik der Republik 1924-1926. Vom
Dawes-Plan zum Internationalen Eisenpakt (Düsseldorf 1979); P. Krüger, Die Außenpolitik der Republik von
Weimar (Darmstadt 1985); H. Mommsen, D. Petzina, and B. Weisbrod (eds.), Industrielles System und politische
Entwicklung in der Weimarer Republik (Düsseldorf 1977).
21
H. Lademacher, Zwei ungleiche Nachbarn, Wege und Wandlungen der deutsch-niederländischen Beziehungen
im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt 1990) 108 ff.
22
See: Richard Kiliani, Die Großbanken-Entwicklung in Holland (Leipzig 1923); Th. Metz, Die Niederlände als
Käufer, Hersteller, Vermittler und Kreditgeber (Frankfurt-am-Main 1930); W.J. Hartmann jr., Amsterdam als
financieel centrum (Gent 1938).
23
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel; Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt/Statistisches Reichsamt,
Statistisches Jahrbuch für das deutsche Reich (Berlin 1880-1942).
14
Jeroen Euwe 1
attention in several case studies.24 Immediately after the Second World War, when
the importance of resuming trade with its former enemy was widely recognized,
these subjects remained popular.
Nevertheless there have only been a few larger publications where both the
economic ties and the political relations are addressed. Amongst those, the work of
P.A. Blaisse on Dutch trade policy during the inter-war years is probably the most
well known.25 However, this book was published in 1948, making it somewhat dated.
A lot of archives, which were unavailable to Blaisse, are now open. Moreover, some
of the material he used from the Dutch Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) –
the official Dutch statistical Office – is questionable, and the attention given to
political relations remained meagre. Klemann’s dissertation (1990) on Dutch
international economic relations solves most of these problems for the 1930s, but
his research was on the Great Depression, leaving most of the Weimar period out of
sight.26 In his dissertation on Dutch commerce and inter-war Dutch foreign policy
(1995), Johannes Houwink ten Cate focuses on major figures in Dutch commerce.27
His rather patchy rendition of events during this period severely limits its usefulness
with regard to the research questions of this project. Besides, his analysis of the
Dutch financial market as well as the importance and consequences of a number of
political and financial developments leave a lot to be desired. Not only does
Houwink ten Cate leave several important questions unanswered, his conclusions
are open to criticism. Finally, there is Im Schatten der Grossen Politik. Deutschniederländische Beziehungen zur Zeit der Weimarer Republik – In the Shadow of
Great Politics . German-Dutch relations in the period of the Weimar Republik – a
study by Ries Roowaan. This book, which according to its introduction has partly the
same research goals as this thesis, remains unclear on how – and to what extent –
both economies were intertwined, and how these economic ties influenced the
political relations between the Netherlands and Germany. On the other hand,
24
M. Vogt, ‘Das deutsch-niederländische Kreditabkommen und das 'Tubantia'-Abkommen. Eine Episode in den
deutsch-niederländischen Beziehungen der frühen Zwischenkriegszeit’. In: K.H. Oldenhage and W. Schreyer
(eds.), Archiv und Geschichte. Festschrift für Friedrich P. Kahlenberg (Düsseldorf 2000) 641-656; Verseput,
‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife’; Jonker, ‘Koopman op een dwaalspoor’; C. Kreutzmüller, Händler und
Handlungsgehilfen. Der Finanzplatz Amsterdam und die deutschen Großbanken, 1918-1945 (Stuttgart 2005).
25
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek.
26
Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire.
27
Houwink Ten Cate, ‘De Mannen van de daad’.
15
Jeroen Euwe 1
Roowaan does pay attention to aspects of Dutch-German political relations that are
left aside elsewhere, like the border dispute concerning the Ems-Dollard area.
Unfortunately the study also is somewhat fragmentary, and lacks both focus and
depth of analysis. It is this lacuna that this thesis aims to fill.
16
Jeroen Euwe 1
1.4
Theoretical framework: interdependence theory
The interaction between economic interdependence and political relations for the
inter-war period in particular was pointed out as early as march 1937 by Marcus
Nadler – a leading American bank economist in his time – who wrote: ‘Ten years ago
any study examining the actual economic interdependence of nations would have
concerned itself primarily with the questions of how the volume of international
trade could be broadened, how the international flow of capital could be diverted
into the most productive channels, and to what extent the various countries could
absorb the surplus labor of the European continent. [...] Today, on the other hand,
an analysis of actual economic interdependence will endeavor to find out how far
the process of economic self-sufficiency has gone, how far it may be expected to go
before it causes too great a pressure on the standard of living of various countries,
and how much regimentation it would entail. We are living in an age in which many
governments control the economic forces to an unprecedented degree and utilize
them to make their countries as far as possible economically self-sufficient. Today
we witness great nations using all their energies and resources to create substitutes
in order to reduce imports [...] We are living in an age in which the invention of a
process of making inferior chocolate out of coal tar is heralded as a great
achievement because it saves foreign exchange for the purchase of war materials
abroad. [...] It also raises the question of how far this mania for economic selfsufficiency can go and when it will reach a breaking point which may involve the
world in another holocaust.’28 The link between economic interdependence and
political relations that Nadler (as it turned out, rightly) described with such drama, is
a subject that has long interested philosophers and others. The various
interpretations of the workings of these linkages comprise the field of
interdependence theory. It is this theory that will be used as the theoretical
framework of this thesis, providing not just an explanatory model for the effects of
the economic bonds between the Netherlands and Germany on their political
relations, but also in determining how to assess – and if possible, measure – such
28
Marcus Nadler, ‘Economic Interdependence, Present and Future’. American Economic Review, Vol. 27, No. 1,
Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Forty-ninth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association
(March 1937), 1-11, here 1.
17
Jeroen Euwe 1
interdependence, as well as demonstrating what elements in those economic bonds
are of significant importance.
The tension between dependence and independence was already a theme in
Machiavelli’s Il Principe (1513). Among economists as well, the concept has a long
history: in his seminal work An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of
Nations (1776) Adam Smith wrote that dependence was a likely consequence of
trade, because such an exchange relationship involved benefits that satisfied mutual
needs. Foregoing such a relationship naturally incurred high costs.29 Two decades
later, it was Immanuel Kant who combined the political and economic
interpretations of the concept into a theory of interdependence in his work Zum
ewigen Frieden (1795) – Perpetual Peace –, arguing that commerce would inevitably
come to the forefront of state policy, and since war had an adverse effect on trade,
states would try to prevent entering into armed conflict with other states.30 On
doing so, Kant laid the foundation for a number of liberal theories on
interdependence such as political, economic, sociological and sophisticated
liberalism. Each of these subtypes of liberalism employs its own theoretical
argument on the causal mechanisms that link interdependence and political
relations, but all share the hypothesis that intense, mutually profitable economic
relations decrease the incentives for conflict, thereby reducing international (armed)
conflict. Free trade plays an important part in establishing and maintaining these
mutually profitable relations.31 The costs of entering into a conflict with a trading
partner would simply be too high, leading states to avoid conflicts and adopt a
restrained political stance while trying to maximize the benefits of
interdependence.32 Liberal interdependence theories mostly focus on political,
economic and military interdependence, and emphasize the importance of free
trade.
29
David A. Baldwin, ‘Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis’. International Organization, Vol. 34,
No. 4 (Autumn 1980) 471-506, here 478.
30
Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf (1795); Immanuel Kant, Zum ewigen Frieden.
Ein philosophischer Entwurf. Herausgegeben von Rudolf Malter (Stuttgart 1984).
31
Patrick J. McDonald, ‘Peace through Trade or Free Trade?’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No.4 (Aug.,
2004) 547-572.
32
Susan M. McMillan, ‘Interdependence and Conflict.’ Mershon International Studies Review, Vol. 41, No.1 (May
1997) 33-58, here 35-40, 42.
18
Jeroen Euwe 1
A competing view on the effects of interdependence is proposed by the (neo)
realists.33 In realism, the central point of interest is the balance of power between
nations. Nations are in a constant struggle for security in an anarchistic world, where
power determines the outcome of a conflict. Therefore, the distribution of power is
the key to peace. However, whether this distribution should be unipolar, bipolar, or
multi-polar is a source of contention between realists. Not surprisingly, economic
interdependence is not so much seen as mutual dependence, but rather as a mix of
independence and dependence, or in other words: a mix of power and vulnerability.
Thus the realists tend to focus on asymmetrical interdependence – where one
nation is, to a greater or lesser extent, economically dependent on the other – and
the effects the associated distribution of power has on the likelihood of (armed)
conflict. Realism offers two hypotheses on the link between conflict and
interdependence. The first is that interdependence has an adverse effect on the
incidence of war, because it increases insecurity: not only as a result of the
aforementioned economic dependence, but also because of the strategic
dependency resulting from the import of strategic goods. A rational economic policy
would thus tend towards autarky, making use of import quotas and tariffs to not
only protect the internal market, but also to put adjacent economies in a subservient
position. The second hypothesis claims there is no significant link between the two,
as political and military-strategic considerations outweighs all other factors.34
With the onset of the Cold War, national security came to be considered the
prime goal. During the 1950s and 1960s, the concept of realism saw its heyday. As
détente set in during the late 1960s, the dominant view was that interdependence
was growing, as was the role of the liberal model as an analytical tool. By the 1980s,
33
Kenneth N. Waltz, Man, the State, and War (New York 1959); K.N. Waltz, ‘The myth of interdependence.’ In:
Charles P. Kindleberger, The international corporation: A symposium (Cambridge (Mass.) 1970) 205-207; K.
Barbieri, ‘Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate Conflict?’ Journal of Peace
Research. Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb., 1996) 29-49.
34
McMillan, ‘Interdependence and Conflict’, 40-42; Robert O.Keohane, Joseph S. Nye. Power and Interdependence
(New York 1989); John R. Oneal, James Lee Ray, ‘New Tests of the Democratic Peace: Controlling for Economic
Interdependence, 1950–85.’ Political Research Quarterly, 50(4) 1997, 751–775; Bruce Russett, John R. Oneal,
Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence, and International Organizations. (New York 2001); Richard
Rosecrance, The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the Modern World (New York 1985);
Edward D. Mansfield, Brian Pollins, ‘The Study of Interdependence and Conflict: Recent Advances, Open
Questions and Directions for Future Research.’ Journal of Conflict Resolution, 45(6) 2001, 834–859.
19
Jeroen Euwe 1
however, tensions were high and (neo) realist views dominant again.35 With the end
of the Cold War and thus the disappearance of the bipolar power relations, liberal
views on interdependence once again came to the fore. Now, however, attempts
were also made to establish a synthesis of the liberal and (neo) realist approaches.
Proving themselves right: liberal and neo-realist models
In the best sociological tradition, both liberals and realists seek to prove their
argument by empirical methods, through statistical analysis. In order to be able to
execute their analyses, they have to quantify the degree of (mutual) dependence
between states and then use this as a variable in their models. Since this research
project claims the Dutch and German economies were intertwined, and as a result
both nations were to some degree dependent upon each other, this claim needs to
be supported by some form of economic – preferably statistical – evidence. In
theory, the models used by interdependence theorists might be used to analyse the
economic bonds between the Netherlands and Germany, their political relations, as
well as their interaction – the balance of power, if you will – regarding their trade
policy, other economic policies, as well as foreign policy. In practice, however, even
the most complex models still have serious flaws that limit their usefulness, as will
be shown by a short comparison of a few well-known models from the Neo-Realist
and Liberal schools of thought.
In 1995, Katherine Barbieri published an updated realist model in her dissertation
‘Economic Interdependence and Militarized Conflict’ that is still highly regarded.36
Central to the model is the concept of ‘trade share’: the share of the total trade
between two states (a dyad) in the total trade of one of these states.37 This defines
the relative importance of trade with a particular nation. The degree of
interdependence is calculated by combining the importance of this trade to these
nations – dyadic salience, which she derives from the ‘trade shares’ of each state in
each others foreign trade – with the symmetry of this trade. This symmetry is also
35
R.O. Keohane, J.S. Nye Jr., ‘Power and Interdependence Revisited.’ International Organization, Vol. 41, No. 4,
(Autumn, 1987) 725-753, here 725-6.
36
Katherine Barbieri, Economic Interdependence and Militarized Conflict, 1870-1990 (Binghamton 1995).
37
Barbieri, ‘Economic Interdependence?’ 29-49.
20
Jeroen Euwe 1
derived from the share each state has in the others’ total trade. In other words: each
part of her model is derived from the denominator ‘trade share’. On the one hand,
this is its strength, while on the other hand it is the models’ Achilles’ heel, as the
relation to GDP – the importance of this trade to the economy as a whole – is never
expressed. The variables salience, symmetry and interdependence are then used in a
model that uses contiguity – the sharing of borders increases the incidence of war,38
– joint democracy –, the notion that democracies are considered to be less likely to
resort to war is widely debated, but both neo-realists and liberals accept that the
evidence supports that they rarely fight each other,39 – alliance –, allies usually do
not fight each other –, and relative capabilities – military superiority increases the
risk of armed conflict –, as other variables.
Unfortunately, apart from the absence of any relation between trade and
GDP, the model presents us with several other problems. Expressing the importance
of trade solely by the share each nation has in another’s foreign trade means that
the costs associated with foregoing or otherwise impeding this trade is not taken
into account. It is, however, not unlikely that there is a significant differentiation
between countries for such costs, which would skew the results in any model that
ignores them. Additionally, Barbieri – like most of the other authors reviewed here –
focuses on commodity trade: the role of the services sector, a core issue in this
research project as the transport sector as well as financial services played an
important role in Dutch-German interdependence, is not considered. The final major
issue is related to the first problem: the degree of openness of an economy is not
included in a satisfactory manner. Barbieri defines openness as a function of the
number of trading partners. While this is undoubtedly an important aspect, no one
can deny that the ratio of international trade to GDP is also a major – and possibly
better – indicator for openness, and certainly an important indicator to a country’s
sensitivity to exogenous economic shocks. It can therefore be concluded that the
neo-realist model uses variables that in large datasets covering many dyads may
38
For a critical overview: John A. Vasquez, ‘Why Do Neighbors Fight? Proximity, Interaction, or Territoriality’.
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Aug., 1995) 277-293.
39
A good overview on the concept, the history and on research of what is known as the democratic peace: Eric
Gartzke, ‘Kant We All Just get Along? Opportunity, Willingness, and the Origins of the Democratic Peace.’
American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, No. 1. (Jan., 1998) 1-27.
21
Jeroen Euwe 1
offer a limited degree of insight into the relation between the occurrence of military
interstate disputes and a high level of trade, it does not do so with regards to
economic interdependence, nor in an in-depth study of the effects of economic
bonds between two nations on their political relations.
A good illustration of how the liberal school of thought approaches an
empirical analysis of interdependence is the work of John Oneal and Bruce Russett.
For Oneal and Russett, the ratio of the trade between two nations and their GDP is
the major point.40 Obviously this model clearly defines the importance of bilateral
trade to the economy of the countries concerned – and thereby their dependence
on this trade – as well as the degree of openness of both economies. Like Barbieri
however, Oneal and Russett completely ignore the service industry. Although this
fits the author’s needs for establishing a certain level of economic traffic, it cannot
be regarded as an acceptable method to determine economic interdependence at
any level deeper than that the cost of disrupting trade may or may not cause states
to seek non-military avenues of conflict resolution. Altogether, both approaches to
assessing economic interdependence do not offer a solution to the assessment of
economic interdependence in all its aspects, which greatly diminishes their
usefulness to this research project.
There have been attempts at reconciling the realist and liberal models. A good
example is the work of Erik Gartzke and Quan Li.41 Their model – which attempts to
reconcile the realist and liberal models – views both nations in a dyadic relationship
separately. For each the dependence is calculated – the ratio of reciprocal trade with
respect to the GDP –, as well as the openness – the share of total foreign trade in
the GDP – and the share of each nation in its partners’ foreign trade. In other words:
they use selected parts from the models of Barbieri and Oneal & Russett, which are
combined in such a way that many of the inherent problems of these earlier models
are solved. Unfortunately, their definition of openness is the share of total trade in
40
John R. Oneal, Bruce M. Russett, ‘The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy, Interdependence, and Conflict,
1950-1985,’ International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41, No.2 (June 1997) 267-293.
41
Erik Gartzke, Quan Li, ‘Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and International Conflict’.
International Organization, 55, 2, Spring 2001, 391-438; Erik Gartzke and Quan Li, ‘Measure for Measure:
Concept Operationalization and the Trade Interdependence: Conflict Debate’. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 40,
No. 5, (Sept. 2003) 553-571.
22
Jeroen Euwe 1
the GDP, which only partly answers the objections voiced earlier regarding both the
model of Barbieri and the model used by Oneal & Russett. But whereas the models
reviewed earlier focus on the flow of commodities between states in order to show
interdependence, Gartzke and Li include financial and monetary integration as
important aspects of interdependence. The importance of capital flows in
interdependence has already been stated by Marcus Nadler in 1937, though in a
very different way. Whereas Nadler considered its main importance to be the
development of ‘backward countries’, thereby increasing international trade and
thus economic growth, Gartzke and Li concentrate on the costs associated with a
disruption of the flow of capital.42
In the final analysis, the models used by interdependence theorists are
limited by the need for reliable and comparable batches of data for a large number
of countries. This limits their accuracy in the present day, and severely limits their
use in historic research. Although within the scope of these models, some
conclusions can be drawn about the workings of economic interdependence, these
are limited by the architecture of the models themselves. Nevertheless, a study of
these models is useful in deciding how to go about establishing whether there was
interdependence in Dutch-German economic relations, and how to study its
structure. Combining this with the theories, the best approach to analyse the
bilateral economic relations seems to be to study trade relations, paying special
attention to how free trade influences both the volume of trade and the political
relations, monetary relations – foreign direct investments and capital flows – and of
course transport services and transport policy, which have hitherto been neglected.
42
Nadler, ‘Economic Interdependence, Present and Future.’ 1.
23
Jeroen Euwe 1
1.5
Interdependence theories: relevance to this study
Interdependence theories not only help in providing a theoretical framework for the
analysis of Dutch-German political relations in the context of their economic ties,
their conceptual models of what constitutes economic interdependence help in
determining how economic interdependence works. Although all of these models
have been shown to be flawed in one way or another, they have provided insights
into the relevant aspects of the workings economic interdependence.
In the use of these theories, this research project has also proven its relevance
to the field of interdependence theories, as it allows an assessment of which of
these theories fits. When one considers Von Moltke’s reasons for not wanting to
involve the Netherlands as a combatant in the First World War, this would seem to
vindicate the liberal theory that a high level of economic interdependence makes
the cost of warfare too high, thus leading to a reticence to initiate (armed) conflict.
Yet the German occupation of the Netherlands during the Second World War would
seem to support the realist theory that security issues are of overriding importance
in interstate relations. However, the situation in 1940 was radically different from
that in 1914. As noted by Nadler in 1937, during the 1930s the movement to
autarchy was exceptionally strong: ‘Today we witness great nations using all their
energies and resources to create substitutes in order to reduce imports; we find
nations with a limited supply of milk priding themselves on their ability to
manufacture wool out of the scarce supply of milk, thereby avoiding the importation
of wool from abroad.’43 This process had begun during the First World War, when
nations had been confronted with their dependence on imports. After the war, the
recovery of international trade was hampered by rising tariffs and import
restrictions. The onset of the Great Depression gave a further impetus to the drive
for national self-sufficiency, as international trade was hampered further by the
crisis in the international money markets and ever more stringent protectionist
measures. The inconvertibility of the German Reichsmark meant that from 1934 on
trade between the Netherlands and Germany had to be settled through a
complicated system of bilateral clearing. The associated paperwork and the need for
43
Ibidem.
24
Jeroen Euwe 1
a bilateral balanced trade nevertheless severely impeded trading.44 The need for
bilateral balanced trade also meant that imports and exports had to decrease to the
level of the lower of the two. The absence of free trade thus caused a much lower
level of trade. The lower level of trade, in turn, lowered the economic cost of war,
while at the same time reducing the political power of those groups in society who
would try to prevent war.45 As trade diminishes, security issues become dominant
through lack of political opposition, and war ensues. The liberal approach to
interdependence therefore still seems relevant.
Although liberal theorists stress that economic interdependence decreases the
incidence of war due to the costs involved, this does not preclude the occurrence of
serious diplomatic conflicts. As Philip Trezise points out in an overview of the
relations between the United States and Canada: ‘A relationship that demonstrably
provides large gains to both parties is clearly subject to considerable, possibly
dangerous, tensions.’46 Trezise identifies personal dislikes, clashes of personalities,
the press, monetary policy, and loss of sovereignty because of foreign direct
investments – fear that through foreign-owned companies, economic decisions may
be made that affect the local economy, or even foreign national policies may be
introduced – as possible causes.47 As such tensions did arise during the period 19181933, and at first glance for much the same reasons, there might be something to be
said for (part of) the realist approach, even though Trezise does point out that when
issues threatened to lead to serious conflict, some form of accommodation was
always reached.48 In the case of Dutch-German economic interdependence
however, there are complications, a reason that this study not only makes use of
interdependence theories, but may have relevance for the study of interdependence
itself as well.
44
Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire, 18-20.
McDonald, ‘Peace through Trade or Free Trade?’ 552.
46
Philip H. Trezise, ‘Interdependence and Its Problems’. International Journal, Vol. 29, No. 4, Economic
Interdependence (Autumn, 1974), 523-534, here 526.
47
Idem, 527-529.
48
Idem, 530.
45
25
Jeroen Euwe 1
Complicating factors
In speaking of the Netherlands as a Supertrading economy, Krugman also pointed
out that he considered it – together with Belgium – to be part of a transnational
economic region, centred on the Ruhr area. When he did so, Krugman was referring
to the situation in the late 20th century. As Klemann proved, the Netherlands fulfilled
his criteria for a Supertrading economy as early as 1864. Tiessen showed that both in
1913 and 1922 transport flows in Germany depended on four major centres. The
greater Duisburg area in the west and Mannheim in the south were both situated
along the Rhine, which forms one of the transportation arteries. In the east, greater
Berlin formed a third transport centre, while in the north the German ports on the
North Sea – primarily Hamburg, to a lesser extent Bremen and Emden – handled an
important part of German imports and exports from overseas. The North Sea ports
of Bremen and Emden handled goods from mostly the Ruhr area and southern
Germany, while Hamburg also handled goods from eastern Germany by way of
Berlin. Transport flows were almost entirely north-south along the line HamburgDuisburg-Mannheim, and north – south-east from Hamburg to Berlin and beyond,
suggesting that Germany was economically divided along these lines.49 This idea has
been expressed and further analysed by Nikolaus Wolf, who concluded that
Germany was divided into a western and eastern part along natural trade routes.
According to Wolf, it took until the end of the Weimar Republic for Germany to
become reasonably economically integrated, in part due to increasing
protectionism.50 One might therefore pose the question, whether the DutchGerman economic bonds were not nation-to-nation, but rather between the
Netherlands and the western part of Germany.51 Although in first instance this might
not seem relevant to the political relations between two nations, it does in fact offer
a whole new set of opportunities for analysis of both political relations and
economic interdependence.
49
E. Tiessen, Der Gesamt-Güterverkehr auf den deutschen Eisenbahnen, 1913 und 1922 (Berlin 1925); E. Tiessen,
Seehafenverkehr und Binnenschiffahrt im Deutschen Reich, 1913 und 1922 (Berlin 1925).
50
Nikolaus Wolf, ‘Was Germany ever united? Evidence from Intra- and International Trade, 1885-1933.’ Journal
of Economic History 69 (3), September 2009, 846-881, here 871-876.
51
Hein A.M. Klemann, Friso Wielenga, ‚Die Niederland und Deutschland, oder verschwindet die nationale
Ökonomie? Eine Enleitung.’ In: Hein A.M. Klemann, Friso Wielenga (Hrsg.), Deutschland und die Niederlande.
Wirtschaftsbeziehungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Münster 2009) 7-17.
26
Jeroen Euwe 1
If the Dutch-German interdependence was based on the economic ties of the
Netherlands with the most western German Länder – or even just a part thereof, if
Krugman’s idea of a transnational economy centred on the Ruhr can be applied to
the interwar period –, the high correlation in growth of the Dutch and the German
GDP would be mainly an indication of the importance of these Länder for the
German economy as a whole. Furthermore, in this case Germany’s political stance
towards the Netherlands would also be a reflection of this economic significance of
these Länder, as well as the political influence wielded by the local populace and its
trade and industry versus the rest of the nation. Although arguably not directly
relevant in state-to-state diplomatic relations, the rich literature on the subject does
offer some relevant insights on the matter.
Transnationalism as a concept has been around since the late 1950s, when
authors such as Arnold Wolfers, John W. Burton, and Karl Kaiser broadened the
dominant state-centric view of international relations to include non-state actors.52
However, it was only with the publication of a special issue – edited by Joseph Nye
and Robert Keohane – of the journal International Organization in 1971, and the
subsequent publication of this special issue as a book, that the concept started to
gain wider acceptance.53 These publications and others also expanded the concept
to include economic relations and the influence of transnational economic ties on
political relations.54 Nevertheless, these latter aspects have subsequently received
little attention, as even the United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations –
UNCTC, established in 1974 – choose to focus its research on transnational
corporations and foreign direct investment.55 With both contemporary and historical
research focussed on organizations and corporations, it was mainly the work of
52
Joseph S. Nye, Jr., Robert O. Keohane, ‘Transnational Relations and World Politics: An Introduction.’ In: Joseph
S. Nye, Jr., Robert O. Keohane, eds., Transnational Relations and World Politics (Cambridge Ma. 1972) ix-xxix,
here x.
53
Nye, Keohane, ‘Transnational Relations and World Politics’. International organization, Vol. XXV, No. 3
(Summer 1971); Nye, Keohane, Transnational Relations and World Politics.
54
See: Samuel P. Huntingdon, ‘Transnational Organizations in World Politics.’ World Politics, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Apr.
1973).
55
Website The United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations, http://unctc.unctad.org/aspx/index.aspx,
accessed 24-9-2011.
27
Jeroen Euwe 1
economists like Paul Krugman and Michael E. Porter on different aspects of spatial
economics that sparked a renewed interest in economic regions.56
The idea of economic activity being concentrated in regions has been
expressed in both economics and geography since the late 1800s, but failed to gain
wide acceptance.57 As economists such as Porter and Krugman conceived a solid
theoretical base for research into economic regions, historians started to take notice
of the possibilities these ideas provided as a theoretical base for their research. As
globalisation became a popular issue in the 1990s, historians showed that though
during the 20th century world trade had increased, patterns of trade actually tended
towards regional concentration.58 Although by 2007 Dutch historians Johan Schot
and Pieter Smits called for a transnational turn in history – suggesting that research
should focus on cross-border flows of people, goods, technology, organizations
etcetera, and how they influence history – in a recent overview of transnational
history, Patricia Clavin still notes that ‘there remains a pressing need for this new
economic history to be integrated into the history-writing of European regions that
cross, and sometimes challenge national boundaries’.59 While this study focuses on
Dutch-German relations, it cannot neglect the possibility that the roots of the
economic relations may be found in the existence of a transnational economic
region, whereas the political relations were at a national level. The nature of these
political ties would therefore to some extent be an expression of the influence of
(representatives of) the region at national levels.
56
See for instance: Michael E. Porter, ‘Regions and the new economics of competition’ In: A.J. Scott (ed.) Global
City Regions (Oxford 2001) 139-152; Michael E. Porter, ‘The economic Performance of Regions.’ Regional Studies,
37 (2003) 549-578; Paul Krugman, ‘Increasing Returns and Economic Geography.’ Journal of Political Economy,
99 (1991) 483-499; Paul Krugman, Development, Geography, and Economic Theory (Cambridge Ma 1996); Paul
Krugman, Geography and trade (Leuven 1991) 98; Paul Krugman, ‘History and Industry Location: The Case of the
Manufacturing Belt.’ American Economic Review, 81 (1991) 80-83.
57
Paul Krugman, Development, Geography, and Economic Theory (Cambridge Ma. 1996) passim.
58
Johan Schot, Jan-Pieter Smits, ‘Introductie: Globalisering en Geschiedenis.’ Tijdschrift voor Sociale en
Economische Geschiedenis, 3 (2007) 3-14.
59
Idem; Patricia Clavin, ‘Time, Manner, Place. Writing European History in Transnational and International
Contexts,’ European History Quarterly, 3 (2010) 624-640, there 635.
28
Jeroen Euwe 1
1.6
Central research question, sub-questions, and composition of the study
This study has as its central research question: how did the economic relations
between the Netherlands and Germany change between 1918 and 1931, and how
did these changes influence the political relations between the two countries? Such
a broad central research question easily leads to a highly detailed, multi-volume
study, which none but a handful of hyper-specialists would care to read. Inspired by
the shortcomings in the attempts of interdependence theorists to quantify
economic interdependence, the choice was made to focus on the nature of the
economic relations. Once the nature of these relations becomes clear, the structural
aspects of the resultant interdependence come into focus as well.
This approach means that the sub-questions have defined the structure of
the thesis. The next chapter deals with the development of Dutch-German economic
ties until the end of the First World War, and the basic political and economic
developments in both countries during the period 1918-1931. It forms a framework
for the subsequent chapters, which deal with the sub-questions. The third chapter
looks at the monetary relations. The monetary instability that plagued continental
Europe after the First World War hit Germany hard, and while the Dutch were
spared catastrophic depreciation and inflation, Dutch-German economic relations
suffered. The question here is not how much they suffered, but rather, how did
those with interests in trade and industry react to this threat to the mutual
economic relations? In spite of the severity of the German crisis, the reaction of the
Dutch government as well as both Dutch and German trade, industry, and financial
companies caused the structure of Dutch-German economic relations to become
stronger. The Dutch also became a major creditor to Germany, and the main
creditor to German trade and industry. Yet the question should be asked what
impact either of these changes in the economic relations between these two
countries had for their political relations?
Trade is the most direct way in which economies interact, and can greatly
influence political relations. The Germany that emerged from the First World War
had different needs in imports and exports than the Kaiserreich. Although the basic
economic structure of the country had not changed, the loss of territory and the
accompanying loss in reserves of ores, in population, agriculture and industry,
29
Jeroen Euwe 1
caused a shift in Germany’s foreign trade. Furthermore, the reparations that
Germany had to pay to the Entente meant that the country needed a substantial
trade surplus, which was an important motivation for it’s increasingly protectionist
trade policy. Both of these aspects of Germany’s foreign trade could have had
devastating consequences for the Dutch-German economic relations and for their
political relations as well. How trade developed and political relations changed is
analysed in the fourth chapter.
The fifth chapter covers an essential aspect in international economic
relations that is conspicuously absent in interdependence models: the role of
transport and services. Yet although transport is subject to trade relations, it is a
separate activity that involves other actors. The Dutch transport sector did more
than just transport Dutch-German trade. Due to the geographic location of the
Netherlands in the Rhine delta, and the location of much of the German industry
near the Rhine, the Dutch seaports and transport sector were in a good position to
handle a substantial part of the German imports and exports from overseas.
Germany’s own North Sea ports were less attractive, due to the higher cost of
transport towards the hinterland. The German transport policy that was intended to
alleviate this problem negatively had impact on Rhine shipping and traffic through
Dutch ports, causing an escalating diplomatic crisis in 1925. A study of transport
flows themselves is not just useful to determine the importance of transport in
economic relations or the effects of German transport policy. These goods flows also
show how the Dutch-German economic ties were mostly based on the relations with
the extended Ruhr region. The sixth and final chapter deals with those political
relations that were not directly related to economic ties, and have therefore not
been discussed in the previous chapters. As it is in fact the main target of this
research project to analyze the economic relation, to get a deeper insight in the
political relations, the conclusion, the outcome of the research on these subquestions, will be integrated into this chapter, that will provide an overview of how,
and to what extent, the Dutch and German economies were intertwined and how
this influenced their political relations. Thus the central research question will be
answered.
30
Jeroen Euwe 2
Chapter 2 – The Netherlands and Germany, 1860-1931
2.1
Introduction
This chapter aims not merely on providing a short overview of Dutch-German
economic ties and political relations during the period 1918-1931, but also – in a
cursory way – to shed light on the emergence of interdependence during the second
half of the nineteenth century. Therefore in the next few pages these ties – whether
they are political or economic in nature – will be placed in an international and
historical perspective. Developments in the German and Dutch economies between
1860 and the outbreak of the First World War will be covered, so as to provide
insight into both the when and how of the emergence of interdependence between
the two countries. The years 1918 through 1931 – the actual period under research
– will then be covered in such detail as is necessary to obtain an overview of
relevant economic and political developments.
31
Jeroen Euwe 2
2.2
The Dutch and German economies since the 1860s
During the capricious 1920s, the Dutch and the German economies were each facing
their own – albeit somewhat interrelated – set of problems. Germany tried to regain
the position it had lost as one of the foremost trading and industrial nations in the
world, not only because of the need for an economic recovery, but also in order to
be able to pay the reparations to its former enemies. Meanwhile, the Netherlands –
trading nation pur sang – was dependent on the recovery of world trade, and most
importantly, the recovery of Germany’s foreign trade.
World trade had grown tremendously in the last few decades of the
nineteenth century. Europe played a key role in this expanding world trade as it
accounted for two thirds of the total, although its share diminished slightly as the
United States expanded its international trade. In 1913 prices, during the early
1880s world trade had a volume of over US$ 15 billion. By the turn of the century
this had increased to more than 22 billion, implying an average growth of about 2
per cent a year. By 1913 world trade had a volume of over 40 billion, indicating that
trade grew with almost 5 per cent annually between 1900 and the Great War.
Together, the United States and Europe were responsible for three quarters of all
international trade.1 The growth was possible in part because of stable international
monetary relations: ‘finance is the nervous system of capitalism’ as Ramsay
McDonald – thrice prime minister of Great Britain during the interwar period –
expressed it,2 but before 1914 international transactions were for the most part
settled in stable pounds sterling, with the London financial centre functioning as the
hub for international financing. Exchange rates were stable within the confines of
the gold standard, a system which itself depended upon the complete confidence in
the stability of the British pound sterling. This in its turn was the result of the close
cooperation amongst governments and central banks. Whenever the system was
threatened – as for instance during the crises of 1890 and 1907 – the assistance of
other central banks, such as those of France or Germany, bolstered confidence in
1
Simon S. Kuznets, Modern Economic Growth. Rate, Structure, Spread (New Haven 1966) 307; Wolfram Fischer,
‘Dimensionen und Struktur der Weltwirtschaft.’ In: H.-J. Gerhard (ed.) Struktur und Dimension. Volume 2 (Stuttgart
1997) 23; Rainer Fremdling, Historical precedents of Global Markets. Research Memorandum GD-43, Groningen
Growth and Development Centre (October 1999) 1-2.
2
Quoted in: Barry J. Eichengreen, Golden Fetters: the gold standard and the great depression, 1919-1939 (New
York 1992) 3.
32
Jeroen Euwe 2
the system and averted a crisis.3 As in 1914 war broke out, however, world trade all
but came to a halt and the system of the gold standard collapsed in the wake of a
credit crunch of hitherto unknown proportions.4 The diminution of world trade
during the war led to structural changes in the economies of many countries that
would be detrimental to its resurgence at war’s end. Only by the end of the 1920s
world trade briefly exceed its pre-war level.5 With the onset of the great depression,
however, world trade collapsed again. Prices fell rapidly, protectionism was
rampant, trade blocs were formed, and once again, many countries abandoned the
gold standard. The Netherlands were confronted by a new situation, where both its
main trading partners were turning inward: Great Britain turned towards its
dominions, and tried to establish an economic bloc, while Germany saw a near total
economic collapse and finally resorted to a stop on payments on short-term credits,
ultimately ending with the inconvertibility of its currency and a policy oriented
towards autarky.
As Dutch-German economic bonds declined to their lowest level in decades,
the era of Dutch-German economic interdependence seemed to have ended. Yet,
the underlying structure of the economic ties remained fundamentally intact. 6 It is
because of this, that they would survive not just the depression, but also another
world war. The German occupation of the Netherlands during this war would cause
severe and long-lasting anti-German sentiments. Nevertheless, after the end of the
war the Dutch where quick to acknowledge the importance of a German economic
recovery and the resumption of economic relations, a process analyzed by Martijn
Lak in his recent dissertation ‘Because We Need Them…’7 The roots for this
3
Fischer, ‘Dimensionen und Struktur der Weltwirtschaft’, 29-30; Eichengreen, Golden Fetters, 4-5, 7-9. For a
discussion on different views on the gold standard, and on why it failed to work during the interwar period:
Eichengreen, Golden Fetters. The explanation of the gold standard here is (mostly) an amalgam of the views of
Eichengreen and Kindleberger. Charles P. Kindleberger, The World in Depression: 1929-1939 (Berkeley 1973).
4
For an analysis of the 1914 financial crisis: Richard Roberts, ‘The London Financial Crisis of 1914.’ In: Patrice
Baubeau and Anders Ögren (eds.), Convergence and Divergence of National Financial Systems: Evidence from the
Gold Standards, 1871-1971 (London 2010) 161-178.
5
th
Angus Maddison, The World Economy in the 20 Century (Paris 1989) 28; P.C. van Traa, ‘De ontwikkeling van de
internationale handel gedurende de afgelopen honderd jaar.’ In: H. Baudet (ed.), Handelswereld en
wereldhandel. Honderd jaar internatio (Rotterdam 1963) 201-232, here 201.
6
Hein A.M. Klemann, ‚Wirtschaftliche Verflechtung im Schatten zweier Kriege 1914-1940.’ In: Hein A.M.
Klemann, Friso Wielenga (Hrsg.), Deutschland und die Niederlande. Wirtschaftsbeziehungen im 19. und 20.
Jahrhundert (Münster 2009) 19-44, here 42-43.
7
Martijn Lak, ‘Because We Need Them…’ German-Dutch relations after the occupation: economic inevitability
and political acceptance, 1945-1957 (PhD-Thesis Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2011).
33
Jeroen Euwe 2
structurally strong and intense economic relations are to be found in the second half
of the nineteenth century, as both the German and Dutch economies transformed.
34
Jeroen Euwe 2
2.3
The German economy up to World War One
For most of the nineteenth century, Germany was a minor presence in world trade.
Until the middle of the century, the diverse German states that would form the
Kaiserreich in 1871 were predominantly agricultural economies (Figure 2.1).8 It was
only from around 1860 that it would experience what Kuznets calls the transition to
modern economic growth: a sustained increase in real product per capita, and
sweeping structural changes such as growth of the population, an increase of the
share of industry in total output and employment, and an overall growth of
productivity.9
Source: W.G. Hoffmann, Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin
10
1965) 454-455; own calculations.
8
Samad Sarferaz, Martin Uebele, ‘Tracking down the business cycle: A dynamic factor model for Germany 1820–
1913.’ Explorations in Economic History, 46 (2009) 368-387; K. Borchardt, ‘Wirtschaftliches Wachstum und
Wechsellagen 1800–1914.’ In: H. Aubin, W. Zorn (eds.), Handbuch der deutschen Wirtschafts- und
Sozialgeschichte, Volume 2 (Stuttgart 1976) 685–740.
9
Kuznets, Modern Economic Growth, passim.
10
Hoffmann’s data have been convincingly called into question by Rainer Fremdling, Carsten Burhop and
Guntram Wolff, Albrecht Ritschl and Mark Spoerer and others. All suggest Hoffmann’s figures – especially those
on the productivity of the industry – are too low. The growth of German industry and its contribution to NDP are
therefore greater than here is indicated. The graph is used merely to illustrate a general trend. See: R. Fremdling,
th
th
‘German National Accounts for the 19 and early 20 century. A critical assessment.’ Vierteljahrschrift für Sozialund Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Vol.75 (1988) 339-357; A. Ritschl, M. Spoerer, ‘Das Bruttosozialprodukt in
35
Jeroen Euwe 2
By 1880 the German business cycle – which until then had been influenced in more
or less equal measure by all economic sectors – was mostly driven by the industrial
sector.11 The new industry consisted predominantly of heavy industry – coal mining,
chemicals, electrical, steel, machinery – instead of consumer-goods industries such
as textiles or food-processing, a tendency that would be enhanced during World
War I. By 1913, German industrial production – in 1890 at roughly two-thirds of the
British level – surpassed that of Great Britain.12 This change in structure of the
German economy was accompanied by an increased share in world trade. Whereas
during the period 1881-1885 this share had been 10.4 per cent, by 1913 it had
grown to 12.4 per cent, which was comparable to Great Britain. In real terms, the
actual growth was even more, as by then the global market was two-and-a half
times as large.13
The outbreak of World War I put an end to relative free trade and monetary
stability, causing world trade to diminish to a minimum. In response to these effects
of the war, neutral countries industrialized at a faster rate to provide their citizens
with the goods that would otherwise have been imported, or increased their
production of food and raw materials in short supply. After the war, the downsides
to this development became clear. Not only had the importance of Europe –
especially Germany and Great Britain – in international trade decreased to the
benefit of the United States and Japan, many countries produced much more
themselves.14 Protectionism would stiffen this tendency. By the end of 1920, the
industrial overcapacity that ensued from wartime developments, coupled to a
shrinking market due to the collapse in demand from Central and Eastern Europe as
a result of extreme inflation and currency depreciations, caused a worldwide
Deutschland nach den amtlichen Volkseinkommens- und Sozialproduktsstatistiken 1901-1995.’ Jahrbuch für
Wirtschaftsgeschichte (1997, Vol. 2) 27-54; C. Burhop, G.B. Wolff, ‘A Compromise Estimate of German Net
National Product, 1851-1913, and its Implications for Growth and Business Cycles.’ Journal of Economic History,
Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 2005) 613-657; R. Fremdling, German Industrial Employment 1925, 1933, 1936 and 1939: A
New Benchmark for 1936 and a Note on Hoffmann's Tales, Research Memorandum GD-94b, Groningen Growth
and Development Centre, University of Groningen, 2007.
11
Sarferaz, Uebele, ‘Tracking down the business cycle’, 385.
12
Hans-Joachim Braun, The German economy in the twentieth century: the German Reich and the Federal
Republic (London 1990) 22.
13
Kuznets, Modern Economic Growth, 307.
14
Wolfram Fischer, ‘Die Weimarer Republik unter den weltwirtschaftlichen Bedingungen der Zwischenkriegszeit.’
In: H. Mommsen, D. Petzina, B. Weisbrod (eds.), Industrielles System und politische Entwicklung in der Weimarer
Republik (Düsseldorf 1977) 26-50, here 28; P. Niehusen, Die Hamburger Kaufmannschaft und Ihre Haltung zur
Exportförderung in der Wiederaufbauphase des Deutschen Außenhandels von 1918-1929 (Hamburg 1980) 10.
36
Jeroen Euwe 2
economic crisis. It is therefore hardly surprising, that by 1921 the volume of world
trade was still at only 65 per cent of its pre-war level.15 Without a Central European
– i.e. a German – economic resurgence, stable currencies, and a revival of free trade,
the pre-war level of international trade and economic growth seemed therefore
unattainable. This conviction was especially strong in the Netherlands, where during
the last few decades before the war the economy had become increasingly
dependent upon its eastern neighbour.
15
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 310, 1924, I, 3. Van der Bie gives an average
decline of 4.7 per cent, which computes as a total decline to 68 per cent of the pre-war level. Ronald van der Bie,
‘Een doorlopende groote roes’: de economische ontwikkeling van Nederland, 1913-1921 (Amsterdam 1995) 103.
37
Jeroen Euwe 2
2.4
The Dutch economy up to World War One
In the Netherlands modern economic growth started during the second half of the
nineteenth century.16 Although this seems similar to the German development, the
comparison ends there, for early on the Dutch economy – the Netherlands was one
of the richest countries of its time – showed a number of modern characteristics.
Already at the beginning of the nineteenth century, agriculture was relatively small,
urbanization levels high, and the service sector large.17 Modern industrialization
would only start in the 1860s, primarily in food processing.18 The importance of
industry grew, but not to the same extent as in Germany. In line with the growth of
the industrial sector, the relative importance of agriculture diminished (Figure 2.2),
though again not to the same extent as in Germany, as a comparison of figures 2.1
and 2.2 shows. In part, this may have been because of the differing reactions to the
agrarian crisis of the 1870s, when the European market was flooded with cheap
American and Russian grain. Ocean shipping rates halved due to technological
innovations in steamships, and railroads connected the American grain-producing
areas to its ports. In Russia, the rail network grew from 990 km in 1860 to 14,020 km
in 1880, as the German network grew from 6980 to 20,690km.19 Although the
German agricultural sector modernized and managed to increase productivity, the
main reaction was to call for protection measures to help their position.
In the Netherlands, the response was more far-reaching. Not only did the
sector modernize in a technical sense, farmers also modernized in an organizational
sense by founding cooperatives and – with government help – investing in
16
Jan-Pieter Smits, Herman de Jong, Bart van Ark, Three Phases of Dutch Economic Growth and Technological
Change, 1815-1997. Research Memorandum GD-42, Groningen Growth and Development Centre (1999) 4. The
slow shift becomes especially clear in employment data: Jan-Pieter Smits, Edwin Horlings, Jan Luiten van Zanden,
Dutch GNP and its Components, 1800-1913 (Groningen 2000) 112-114.
17
Ary Burger, ‘Dutch patterns of development. Economic growth and structural change in the Netherlands, 18001910.’ Economic and Social History in the Netherlands, Vol. 7 (1996) 161-180, here 176; Jan-Pieter Smits, 'The
size and structure of the Dutch service sector in international perspective, 1850-1914.' Economic and Social
History in the Netherlands, Volume 2 (1990) 81-98, here 94.
18
Smits et al, Dutch GNP and its Components, 1800-1913, 130-141. More on the issue of why Dutch industrial
rd
development was relatively late: I.J. Brugmans, Paardenkracht en mensenmacht (Den Haag 3 ed. 1976); R.
Griffiths, ‘Backward, late or different?’ In: J.L. van Zanden (ed.), The economic development of the Netherlands
since 1870 (Cheltenham 1996) 1-22; Richard T. Griffiths, Industrial retardation in the Netherlands, 1830-1850
(The Hague 1979); Keetie E. Sluyterman, Kerende Kansen. Het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven in de twintigse eeuw
(Amsterdam 2003) 15-20.
19
W.W. Rostow, The World Economy. History & Prospect (London 1978) 152 and 164-165; H.P.H. Nusteling, De
Rijnvaart in het tijdperk van stoom en steenkool, 1831-1914 (Amsterdam 1974) 307-309; Dirk Pilat, Dutch
Agricultural Export Performance, 1846-1926 (Groningen 1988) 2, 12; Brugmans, Paardenkracht en mensenmacht,
288-289; Fremdling, Historical Precedents, passim.
38
Jeroen Euwe 2
education. Another reaction was to forego competition in cheap bulk-produce and
shift to other crops, or to transform into animal husbandry, while importing
fertilizers for the new labour-intensive forms of agriculture, and fodder for the
animals, and producing meat, dairy products and eggs (Table 2.1) for the new
industrial markets in Germany and Britain. There the lower grain prices led to higher
real wages, which in its turn led to a higher demand for meat and dairy products.20
After the transformation, the Dutch agrarian sector was thus not only more
profitable, but was also growing again.
Sources: Jan-Pieter Smits, Edwin Horlings, Jan Luiten van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its Components ,1800-1913
(Groningen 2000); CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen (Voorburg 2001); Own calculations.
By education, technical innovation, and specializing in relatively labour intensive
luxury products, Dutch agriculture managed to offset higher labour costs and remain
competitive. Although its share in total employment declined, the actual
20
J.Th. Lindblad, J.L. van Zanden, `De buitenlandse handel van Nederland, 1872-1913.' Economisch- en sociaalhistorisch jaarboek, 52 (1989) 231-269, here 259; Merijn Knibbe, Agriculture in the Netherlands, 1851-1950.
Production and institutional change (Amsterdam 1993) 130 ff.; C.H.J. van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische
Handel und die deutsche Agrareinfuhr in den Jahren 1920-1940 (Mainz 1953) 54; Brugmans, Paardenkracht en
mensenmacht, 290-306.
39
Jeroen Euwe 2
employment in the agricultural sector rose.21 In contrast to the German, the Dutch
agriculture was to a considerable extent an integral part of the industry, which
produced foodstuffs and raw materials for industries based on agricultural products,
such as strawboard, beer, liquor, textiles, tobacco, margarine industries et cetera.22
This specialisation within agriculture, horticulture, and related industrial products
led to a greater reliance on exports, as the home market was too small to absorb
this specialized production. Nearby industrial centres in Germany and the United
Kingdom with well-paid labour provided markets for these products.
Table 2.1: Output of the Dutch agricultural sector, in percentages of total agricultural
output, 1850-1910.
Year
Arable farming
Livestock breeding
Horticulture
1850
1870
1890
1910
51.2
46.3
37.9
31.0
46.5
51.1
57.7
62.1
2.3
2.6
4.4
6.9
Source: Jan-Pieter Smits, Edwin Horlings, Jan Luiten van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its Components, 1800-1913
(Groningen 2000) 121-123; Own calculations.
Imports were also intrinsically high. Partly, this was because after its transformation
at the end of the nineteenth century, Dutch agriculture was no longer able to feed
the Dutch people and its livestock and had to import food and fodder, as well as the
necessary machinery and fertilizers. The Netherlands also lacked raw materials that
were essential for its industry, such as coal and ores, which meant that most
industrial activities not related to foodstuffs relied on imports. In other instances,
the combination of free trade, stable currencies and low transport costs made it
economically unfeasible to extract raw materials such as coal or produce semifinished products such as steel. Coal was readily and cheaply available from the
German Ruhr area or from the British Newcastle, while – due to dumping by German
cartels – iron and steel was sold on the Dutch market at prices below those in
21
See: Knibbe, Agriculture in the Netherlands, 130 ff.; C. Folmer, Agricultural Relationships between Germany
and the Netherlands, CPB Research Memorandum No. 122 (Den Haag 1995) 26-29; Smits et al, Dutch GNP and its
components, 112-114.
22
J.L. van Zanden, Een klein land in de 20e eeuw: economische geschiedenis van Nederland 1914-1995 (Utrecht
1997) 22.
40
Jeroen Euwe 2
Germany itself.23 This was an important factor in the growth of the Dutch
shipbuilding industry.24 There were also other ways, in which imports from Germany
were of importance to the development of the Dutch industry. German know-how in
the form of manufacturing processes and at times even technical personnel was
used in a wide variety of Dutch industrial enterprises from breweries to cement and
the manufacturing of electric light bulbs.25 The links to the German industry also
extended to the very beginning of Dutch industrialization: the investments in the
Dutch infrastructure were in themselves in response to the demand created by
West-German industrialization.26
Sources: Jan-Pieter Smits, Edwin Horlings, Jan Luiten van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its Components, 1800-1913
(Groningen 2000); CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen (Voorburg 2001); Own calculations.
23
André Beening, Onder de vleugels van de adelaar: de Duitse buitenlandse politiek ten aanzien van Nederland in
de periode 1890-1914 (Amsterdam 1994) 126-127.
24
Hein A.M. Klemann, German-Dutch monetary relations (unpublished manuscript) 13.
25
Marc Frey, Der Erste Weltkrieg und die Niederlande: ein neutrales Land im politischen und wirtschaftlichen
Kalkül der Kriegsgegner (Berlin 1998) 45-46.
26
Peter Groote, Kapitaalvorming in infrastructuur in Nederland (Groningen 1995); P. Groote, J. Jacobs and J.E.
Sturm, Output Responses to Infrastructure Investment in the Netherlands, 1850-1913, Research Memorandum
GD-24 (Groningen 2005).
41
Jeroen Euwe 2
The Netherlands: an open economy
The changes in the structure of the Dutch economy had a marked influence on
Dutch international trade. The greater reliance on imports is illustrated by its growth
from 26 per cent in 1840, to 43 per cent of the GDP twenty years later (Figure 2.3).
Exports showed an even greater development, as they progressed from 16 per cent
of the GDP in 1840 to 43 per cent in 1860. Just three years later, exports had
reached a level of over 50 per cent.27 Both imports and exports would remain at
these extraordinary high levels until the outbreak of the First World War (Graph 2.3).
When exports are at such a high level, it indicates that the economic interaction with
the rest of the world is so intense that the notion of a national economy can be
called into question.28 The only way the added value in exports can rise to this level,
is when the manufacturing process is sliced up into distinct sub-processes, each of
which raises the value.29 The chain of production is cut apart and only one or two
links are actually produced in the country. In other words, the Netherlands imported
raw materials or semi-finished products, added some value, and exported the
products again. Thus, Dutch industry – as far as it was not linked with agriculture –
was just a link in internationally organized production chains.30 Low transport costs,
characteristic for this period and strengthened by the canalization and liberalization
of the Rhine, made this possible.31
However, the Dutch economy did not quite conform to this concept. Rather
than being a link in the manufacturing process, the Dutch economy was geared
more towards supplying Germany – more specifically, it will be argued, the extended
Ruhr-area – with foodstuffs and manufactures and by way of trade and transit traffic
also raw materials. Dutch industry, agriculture and services were becoming an
27
Ibidem. For the exports of merchandise, these numbers are 14 and 39 per cent respectively.
Paul Krugman, Richard N. Cooper, T. N. Srinivasan, ‘Growing World Trade: Causes and Consequences.’
Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1995, No. 1, (1995), 327-377; H.A.M. Klemann, Waarom bestaat
Nederland eigenlijk nog? Nederland-Duitsland: Economische integratie en politieke consequenties 1860-2000
(Rotterdam 2006) 12-13.
29
This becomes clear when looking at the relative increase of the added value in foreign trade, which after 1840
declined. See: Smits et al, Dutch GNP and its components, 142, 219, 204-206; own calculations.
30
See: Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog? passim; Sluyterman, Kerende Kansen, 18-20.
31
Hein A.M. Klemann and Joep Schenk, ‘Competition in the Rhine Delta. Waterways, railways and ports, 18701913’, Economic History Review (forthcoming).
28
42
Jeroen Euwe 2
integral part of an economic region that centred on the Ruhr.32 It is because of this,
that Klemann used the emergence of the Netherlands as a supertrading economy as
an explanatory factor in Dutch-German economic interdependence. As a
consequence, for the agricultural sector, export was the only way it could sell its
products, and for the industrial sector export was needed as much of its output
consisted of semi-manufactured products that were part of a longer manufacturing
chain. Imports were important to feed the population and its livestock, as well as to
supply industry. Consequently, the transport sector developed as trade expanded:
the added value (in 1913 prices) of maritime shipping rose from 7.4 million in 1860
to 44.9 million guilders in 1913, while that of international river shipping rose from
0.6 million to 11.7 million guilders. Developments in the transport sector also
influenced Dutch industry, such as shipbuilding. Between 1860 and 1913, the added
value in constant (1913) prices in this sector increased sevenfold, from 4.7 to 33.9
million guilders.33
The growth of the transport sector was not only due to the increase in Dutch
trade, but also a consequence of the rapid, coal-based industrialization of the
hinterland of the Dutch ports along the German Rhine. After its canalization, the
Rhine provided a cheap and high-capacity mode of transport, and the position of the
Netherlands in the Rhine river delta made it a natural partner in transport for the
German industry. In order to fulfil this role, and because of the Dutch’ own
dependence on trade, there was a need for an excellent infrastructure. Part of this
was provided for with the Rhine, but it was only after the river’s navigability had
been improved by a large-scale canalization program, and shipping itself had
become cheaper because of technological advancements, that in the last decades of
the nineteenth century, Rhine shipping would become the dominant mode of
transport in tonnage.34 Initially, railway transport was of prime importance.
Development of Dutch international railway transport was slow, especially
compared to Belgium, which since 1843 was connected to Germany through the Iron
32
Hein A.M. Klemann, ‘Ontwikkeling door isolement, De Nederlandse economie 1914-1918.’ In: Martin
Kraaijestein, Paul Schulten (eds.), Wankel evenwicht: neutraal Nederland en de Eerste Wereldoorlog (Soesterberg
2007) 232-271; Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog?
33
Smits et al, Dutch GNP and its Components, 143-144; own calculations.
34
Klemann and Schenk, Competition in the Rhine Delta; Smits et al, Dutch GNP and its Components.
43
Jeroen Euwe 2
Rhine. During the 1860s and 1870s, Dutch rail connections to Germany greatly
improved, but that between Antwerp and the German hinterland stayed much
better than the railways of any of the major Dutch ports. Railways came to specialise
in the transport of people, perishable foodstuffs, and high-grade mixed cargo, while
inland shipping was used mainly to transport bulk goods. Other aspects of the
infrastructure that were of importance to transit traffic were improved as well: the
Noordzeekanaal – a canal linking the port of Amsterdam directly to the North Sea –
was opened in 1876, while the Nieuwe Waterweg – which connected the port of
Rotterdam to the North Sea – underwent continuous improvements between 1866
and 1872, and again in 1885. These investments in infrastructure improved the
competitiveness of the Dutch ports and led to an increased market share of the
Dutch ports at the expense of Hamburg and Antwerp.35 When by the end of the
nineteenth century Rhine shipping began its explosive growth to become – in
matters of tonnage – the premier mode of transportation for Ruhr imports and
exports, it was the port of Rotterdam that profited. Its throughput surpassed that of
Antwerp at the turn of the century, and that of Hamburg shortly before the war.
The First World War: the vulnerability of an open economy
By 1913, the ratio of exports of merchandise to GDP had been well over 60 per cent
per cent for thirty years, while imports were even higher (Figure 2.3, Figure 2.4). 36
The Dutch economy was unique in this dependence on foreign trade. Only Belgium
would, by the end of the pre-war period, start to approach a similar level of
openness (Figure 2.4). The First World War would change this, in first instance
because of the decrease of world trade during the war itself, in second instance due
to structural changes in the economies all over the world, that made themselves felt
when – after the war – world trade did not resume at its pre-war level. During the
previous four years, economies had turned inwards, as countries sought to decrease
their dependence on the outside world to cope with wartime isolation. Countries
35
Rainer R. Fremdling, ‘Die niederländische Eisenbahnen und ihr deutsches Hinterland 1853-1938.’ In: H.-J.
Gerhard (ed.) Struktur und Dimension (Stuttgart 1997) 50-72, here 50-64.
36
Smits et al, Dutch GNP and its components; own calculations.
44
Jeroen Euwe 2
that had mainly exported raw materials and imported manufactured goods, now
turned towards developing their own industries.
In industrialized countries such as the Netherlands, changes were more
complex. On the one hand, as foreign trade decreased, so did competition. In a
number of industries – such as shipbuilding, rubber, textiles – the disappearance of
foreign competition led to increased production and investments in increased
production capacity and modernization. Due to the difficulties in trade however,
companies were confronted with supply problems. Raw materials and semi-finished
products, until recently imported, now were needed in the belligerent countries,
and not sent to Dutch industry anymore. To cope with this, companies started their
own production of semi-finished products or tried to guarantee the supply of raw
materials by vertical integration. If a company was too small to cope with these
problems, a number of companies together tried to solve these wartime problems.
Thus, the isolation from the outside world caused vertical, as well as horizontal
integration.
Sources: Marc Flandreau, Frédéric Zumer, The Making of Global Finance, 1880-1913 (Paris 2004) 121; Jan-Pieter
Smits, Edwin Horlings, Jan Luiten van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its Components, 1800-1913 (Groningen 2000); CBS,
Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen (Voorburg 2001); Own calculations.
45
Jeroen Euwe 2
The tendency towards vertical integration was in many cases different from that in
Germany. Whereas German companies used foreign subsidiaries, in the
Netherlands, companies started to combine stages in the production chain in-house,
such as the textile mills in Twente did. As trade decreased to a minimum in 1917 and
1918, shortages of coal and steel led the government to reduce Dutch dependency
upon imports by promoting basic industries such as coal mining, and the production
of iron and steel.37 After the war, both the decrease in world trade – due to
economic changes and economic problems – as well as the changes in the Dutch
economy led to a structurally lower level of foreign trade. The question is, however,
whether this led to a lower level of economic interdependence between the
Netherlands and Germany? In other words: did the economy of these countries
become less intertwined? Given that the intensity of Dutch-German economic ties
was a consequence of trade with, and transport services for, the German market,
this relied upon the economic recovery of the German economy.
37
This paragraph is based on: Hein Klemann, ‘Ontwikkeling door isolement’, Keetie E. Sluyterman, Kerende
Kansen, 99-119 and Keetie E. Sluyterman, ‘Dutch Business during the First World War and its aftermath.’ In: CarlJohan Gadd, Staffan Granér and Sverker Jonsson, (eds.), Markets and Embeddedness. Essays in honour of Ulf
Olsson (Göteborg 2004) 241-264.
46
Jeroen Euwe 2
2.5
Germany during the first post-war years: political and economic troubles
Immediately after the end of hostilities, economies all over the world blossomed.
During the war, the production of consumer goods had taken a back seat to the
demands of warfare. Now, the populace acquired goods that had been unavailable
during the previous years, while industry replenished the inventory that had
dwindled away and governments invested to undo war damages. However, by the
end of 1920 these immediate needs had been met. Now, the loss of purchasing
power in Central Europe – including Germany –, the Balkans and Russia, and a
worldwide industrial overcapacity came to light. As sales failed to keep up with
production, in the United States and Great Britain goods were being stockpiled.
Prices decreased, and the banks – which had financed the stockpiling – decided to
decline requests for new credits, instead calling in existing loans.38 The resultant
crisis was aggravated by protective measures intended to bolster newly founded
industries – so-called war-childs. Furthermore, apart from the well-known example
of Germany, countries such as Austria, France, Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
Spain, Finland and Czechoslovakia were also affected to a greater or lesser degree by
severe inflation and depreciation of their national currencies, which adversely
affected what remained of international trade.39 The crisis passed however, and
when in 1925 Great Britain returned to the gold standard – together with other
countries among which the Netherlands –, it seemed that the foundations for
prosperity had been restored. Yet problems with the gold standard had already
started to emerge before the First World War, and would again arise in a few years.
In addition, the choices some countries made regarding the exchange rate of their
currency when returning to the gold standard were already at that time considered
unwise.40
38
BArch R 3101/2737 fol. 186, 187 German Legation The Hague, 27 January 1921 to the Auswärtige Amt (Foreign
Office), Berlin. Report concerning an interview of Vissering in the Dutch newspaper ‘Het Volk’ about the causes
of the economic crisis; Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 310, 1924, I (Berlin ) 3. See
also: Archive DNB, 2.1/332/1 Market Report by Boissevain & Co., New York, 1 January 1921.
39
De Nederlandsche Bank, Verslag door den president en verslag van de commissarissen, uitgebracht in de
algemeene vergadering van aandeelhouders (Amsterdam 1918-1925).
40
Eichengreen, Golden Fetters, 9. The fact that Great Britain chose to return to pre-war parity would severely
hamper its economy. Although Germany had de facto returned to the gold standard in 1924, the Reichsbank did
not export gold.
47
Jeroen Euwe 2
For Germany, the first post-war years were marked by political instability and social
disturbances, problems with reparations payments, and steadily increasing inflation.
In addition, the new republic lost large tracts of land with the Versailles settlement.
Apart from all German colonies, these included the industrial and mining district of
Upper Silesia, most of corn producing Posen and East Prussia and the port of Danzig
in the east, part of Schleswig in the north, and the iron-ore producing AlsaceLorraine, the coal mining Saar district and Eupen and Malmedy in the west. These
regions contained important industry, raw materials, and agriculture. In all, Germany
lost some 15 per cent of its arable land (against a loss of 10 per cent of its
population) and 75 per cent of its iron ore deposits. Production capacity was
considerably reduced, with output of important materials such as pig iron, steel and
coal decreasing by respectively 44, 38, and 26 per cent.41 Yet in spite of this, the
structure of German industry as a whole did not change: it still concentrated on the
production of coal, iron and steel, machinery, chemicals and electronics. 42 These
losses not only curtailed German production, but also increased its dependence
upon imports of raw materials and foodstuffs. Yet until mid-1919, such imports were
impossible due to the Allied blockade of German foreign trade. Only when the
German society returned to some measure of stability, and when foreign trade was
finally resumed, did the German economy start to revive. In fact, in stark contrast to
the economic crisis in the rest of the world, the German economy showed strong
growth from 1920 until the autumn of 1922.43 This economic recovery was initially
aided by, and would later come to an end because of the inflation in Germany.
The cause of the German inflation was primarily the inflationary financing of
the war. Due to price and exchange rate controls, however, inflation only really
showed after the armistice.44 From the outbreak of war in 1914, banknotes were no
41
Braun, The German economy in the twentieth century,33; Karl-Heinrich Pohl, Weimars Wirtschaft und die
Außenpolitik der Republik 1924-1926. Vom Dawes-Plan zum Internationalen Eisenpakt (Düsseldorf 1979) 15;
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs (Berlin 1924) Band 310, I, 2.
42
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs (Berlin 1924) Band 310, I .9 and 1928 Band 366, I, 8.
43
Niehusen, Die Hamburger Kaufmannschaft, 17; Braun, The German economy in the twentieth century, 37, 47;
CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen, 1921-1939 en 1969-1985: een vergelijking op basis van herziene
gegevens voor het interbellum (The Hague 1987) 81-87.
44
Braun, The German economy in the twentieth century 37; For an overview on the origins and development of
the German inflation and its impact on contemporary politics, as well as on its link to the rise of NationalSocialism: Gerald D. Feldman, The Great Disorder. Politics, Economics, and Society in the German Inflation, 19141924 (New York 1993).
48
Jeroen Euwe 2
longer redeemable in gold at the Reichsbank. What was effectively a suspension of
the gold standard was followed by a number of measures that were aimed at aiding
financing the war. The most important was a relaxation of the note coverage.45 This
enabled the Reichsbank to grant a continuously growing amount of credit to the
government, which in turn led to an ever-growing amount of money in circulation.
Confident that after the war its defeated enemies would pay for the costs incurred
during the war, the German government chose to rely on war loans and short-term
treasury bills instead of taxes to finance the war.46 This was not entirely voluntarily
though. As the Kaiserreich was a confederation of a great number of Principalities,
which each had their own tax system and never handed over the sovereignty on
taxation to the Reich, the national government could only levy indirect taxes. Direct
taxes were the domain of the Länder – states. Therefore it was difficult to raise
sufficient funds through taxation.47 As a consequence, by the end of the war, the
German national debt had grown to over three times the net national income. In the
same period, the money supply became five times as high, while the gross domestic
product had diminished.
The German government was by no means unaware of the need to better
organize its finances. By the end of 1919, finance minister Matthias Erzberger of the
Catholic Deutsche Zentrumspartei – German Centre Party – instigated a tax reform,
transferring fiscal sovereignty to the central government, while simultaneously
raising tax rates and adopting new taxes. Nevertheless, inflation became
progressively worse. The Reichsbank concentrated on stabilizing the exchange rate
of the Mark – which within the government was also seen as a prerequisite towards
stabilization – while it continued to finance government budget deficits at the same
time. Many of these deficits were the result of attempts to reclaim some measure of
political stability by awarding government contracts to German industry, thereby
creating employment for demobilized troops and generating economic activity. 48
45
Fischer, ‘Dimensionen und Struktur der Weltwirtschaft.’ 12.
Braun, The German economy in the twentieth century, 30; Fischer, ‘Dimensionen und Struktur der
Weltwirtschaft.’ 13.
47
Patricia Clavin, The Great Depression in Europe, 1929-1939 (New York 2000) 16.
48
See: Werner Abelshauser, ‘Wirtschaft, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt 1914-1945.’ In: W. Köllmann, H. Korte, D.
Petzina, W. Weber (eds.), Das Ruhrgebiet im Industriezeitalter: Geschichte und Entwicklung, Band 1 (Düsseldorf
1990) 436-489, here 454.
46
49
Jeroen Euwe 2
National debt and money supply thus continued to expand. Yet, not all aspects of
the inflation were detrimental to the economy. Prices within Germany were low
compared to the exchange rate of the Mark, which resulted into higher exports and
opened new export markets. Inflation and especially depreciation thus actually
helped German foreign trade. As a consequence, between 1920 and 1922, Germany
enjoyed a boom instead of a crisis, as other countries did.49 Between 1919 and 1923,
almost five thousand new businesses were established.50 However, by the summer
of 1922, inflation was hampering the economy and recession threatened to set in.
Shortly after – due to a conflict regarding reparations payments – events would take
a turn for the worse and inflation would turn into hyperinflation until finally the
entire German economy collapsed.51
Within Germany, the height of the reparations payments were seen as
unreasonable, while the members of the Entente, who expected compensation,
suspected Germany of sabotaging the payments. Most important among the
Entente was France, which strongly held to the principle it proclaimed during the
war: ‘le boche paiera’ – the Kraut will pay. When Germany – which already in 1921
had stated that it would not be able to meet the instalments – defaulted at the end
of 1922, in January 1923 the French and Belgian troops occupied its industrial
heartland, the Ruhr area. The Germans responded with strikes in the entire area and
industrial production fell drastically, worsening the recession that had by then
already started. The government supported the strikers financially, and borrowed
heavily from the Reichsbank to do so. Consequently, the rate of inflation increased
with the governmental debts and the money supply. By the summer inflation had
turned into hyperinflation. In November the government introduced an interim
currency, the Rentenmark, to be issued by the newly founded Rentenbank, which
also – together with the Reichsbank – imposed a limit on government borrowing. In
spite of several crises, this Kreditstopp – credit stop – remained in effect and the
49
Niehusen, Die Hamburger Kaufmannschaft, 17; Braun, The German economy in the twentieth century, 47.
Arthur Spiethoff, Die wirtschaftlichen Wechsellagen: Aufschwung, Krise, Stockung, Band II: Lange statistische
Reihen über die Merkmale der wirtschaftlichen Wechsellagen (Tübingen 1955) passim.
51
For a more in-depth overview of the German economic developments during the interwar-war period until
1923: C.-L. Holtfrerich, Die deutsche Inflation 1914-1923. Ursachen und Folgen in internationaler Perspektive
(Berlin 1980); G.D. Feldman, Die deutsche Inflation: eine Zwischenbilanz (Berlin 1982); G.D. Feldman, C.-L
Holtfrerich, G.A. Ritter, P.-C. Witt, eds., Konsequenzen der Inflation (Berlin 1989); Feldman, The Great Disorder;
D. Petzina, Die deutsche Wirtschaft in der Zwischenkriegszeit (Wiesbaden 1977).
50
50
Jeroen Euwe 2
Rentenmark remained stable until it was replace in September 1924, by a
permanent currency, the Reichsmark.
Minister Erzberger, who had worked hard to reorganize German finances,
would not see the stabilization of the Mark. He was assassinated on 26 August 1921,
one of the many victims of the political instability of the era that would also claim
the lives of Reich Foreign Minister Walter Rathenau, and of the communist activists
Rosa Luxembourg and Karl Liebknecht, not to mention those who lost their lives in
the Kapp-putsch of March 1920, the Beer Hall Putsch of November 1923 – Hitler’s
first attempt to rise to power – or the street fights that were the order of the day.
With monetary stability, however, Germany regained some level of political stability.
Although this political stability was marginal – the first five years of the Republic had
seen nine governments, the remaining ten years of the Republic would see another
six – until the advent of the Great Depression political violence would no longer
define the political discourse.
Political stability and economic recovery
Due to the hyperinflation, the real money value of the German national debt – 154
billion Mark at the end of the war – had become progressively smaller. When the
German currency was finally stabilized in autumn 1923, the national debt had all but
evaporated: the exchange rate between the old Mark and the new Reichsmark was a
1000 billion (1012) to one.52 The same goes for the debts incurred by companies and
private individuals, as until 1923 the German banks did not factor in inflation. To
them, a Mark was a Mark. As a result, their losses amounted to billions.53 This
hampered the economic recovery once the Mark had been stabilized. Trade and
industry had lost their working capital, and thus were more than ever before
dependent upon credits. However, the German money market was very tight, as
bank deposits etcetera had vanished due to the inflation and the would remain
52
9
A billion can mean 1,000,000,000, one thousand million, 10 , or 1,000,000,000,000, one million times a million,
12
9
10 . Here it is 10 .
53
Martin Gehr, Das Verhältnis zwischen Banken und Industrie in Deutschland seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts
bis zur Bankenkrise von 1931 unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des industriellen Großkredits (Tübingen 1959)
86.
51
Jeroen Euwe 2
tight, as – given their all too recent experiences – people were hardly motivated to
set aside money.54 This resulted in high interest rates, and caused German
companies to seek foreign credits to accommodate both their short and long term
financial needs. These foreign credits would only start to flow into Germany once
the new Reichsmark had proved to be stable. The long-term stability of the new
Mark hinged upon a new arrangement for the payment of reparations.
The Reparations Committee – the allied commission that oversaw German
payments – installed a special commission that would concern itself with the
government finances and the stabilization of the Reichsmark. This commission –
named after its chairman, the American banker and politician Charles G. Dawes –
was to structure payments in such a way as to ensure a regular payment of
reparations until a definitive solution could be agreed to. This not only entailed the
determination of a yearly payment that was regarded as economically viable, it also
meant ensuring a continued stability of the Reichsmark and a regular transfer of
reparations. The Reichsbank was placed under supervision of a Control Council –
which consisted of foreign and German members in equal measure – to ensure
continued stability of the Reichsmark. A commissioner for banknote issuance – the
Dutchman Gijsbert W.J. Bruins, first professor as well as first rector of the
Nederlandse Handels Hoogeschool, the eldest precursor to the Erasmus University –
was appointed to ensure that the gold coverage for the new currency would be
respected, while an Agent-general for Reparations Payments – the American banker
Parker Gilbert – was to supervise the financial policy of the German government and
arrange for the transfer of the reparations payments.55 Although these reparations
had to be paid in foreign currency, the Office for Reparations Payments received
payments in Reichsmark. These were converted – dependent upon the foreign
exchange reserves of the Reichsbank – into foreign currency at the Reichsbank.
Payments to the Entente – transfers – were thus only done when these would not
destabilize the German economy, while extensive control measures ensured that
54
Idem, 92-95.
J.Th.M. Houwink ten Cate (ed.), Bruins’ Berlijnse besprekingen Een selectie uit het archief van prof. mr. dr.
G.W.J. Bruins, in het bijzonder de jaren 1924-1930 (The Hague 1989) 18; Albrecht Ritschl, Deutschlands Krise und
Konjunktur 1924-1934. Binnenkonjunktur, Auslandsverschuldung und Reparationsproblem zwischen Dawes-Plan
und Transfersperre (Berlin 2002) 122.
55
52
Jeroen Euwe 2
payments would be maximized. As the primary source of foreign currency was
foreign trade – which was only recovering slowly – this meant that an influx of
foreign capital was needed to enable these transfers to be made.
The inflow of foreign credits was provided for through the Dawes-loan, an
international loan of over US$ 250 million guaranteed by the governments of the
lender countries. The members of the Entente took the brunt of the loan out of
political necessity, although the bonds proved to be extremely popular and the
American share was fully subscribed in just twelve minutes. Neutral countries like
the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Sweden, showed considerable interest as well and
took a relatively large share.56 With a stable currency and with the problems with
the reparations payments ostensibly resolved, German firms and national as well as
local governments had no trouble securing more short and long term loans abroad,
and an increasing flow of foreign loans to Germany started. Between 1925 and 1931,
the German balance of payments showed capital imports of RM 24.5 billion,
equivalent to 4.4 per cent of the sum of the GDP during this period.57 The stabilized
political and monetary situation, reformed public finances, and the Dawes-plan had
created the preconditions for a period of economic growth, which seemed to last for
the remainder of the decade.
The golden twenties?
The period 1924 to 1929 is popularly known as the golden years, golden era or
golden twenties.58 Based on the development of exports, which increased almost
continuously until its peak in the autumn of 1929, the term seems justified.
Especially the first two years showed impressive growth rates – 17 per cent, 11 per
cent in real prices – and between 1925 and 1929 the GDP grew at an average rate of
4.2 per cent. This was impressive, but it was less than the rate achieved in the
56
W.J. Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum: een beschrijvende critische en vergelijkende studie (PhD
dissertation, Universiteit Gent, 1937) 26.
57
Ritschl, Deutschlands Krise und Konjunktur, 297 ff; Ritschl, Spoerer, ‘Das Bruttosozialprodukt in Deutschland’,
53-54; Own calculations.
58
See: Theo Balderston, The Origins and Course of the German Economic Crisis 1923-1932 (Berlin 1993); Ritschl,
Deutschlands Krise und Konjunktur 1924-1934; W.C. McNeil, American Money and the Weimar Republic.
Economics and Politics on the Eve of the Great Depression (New York 1986).
53
Jeroen Euwe 2
Netherlands.59 More importantly, although by 1925 output of the industry and
service sectors surpassed pre-war levels, economic growth was uneven, and, due to
the sad state of agriculture, the gross domestic product was still well below its 1913
level (Table 2.2).60
Table 2.2: German GDP and foreign trade in billion RM, 1913, 1925-1931. 1913 prices.
Year
GDP
Imports of
merchandise
Exports of
merchandise
Trade
balance
Mutations, in percentages of
the previous period
GDP
1913
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
48.5
45.5
43.7
51.8
53.0
53.6
50.3
45.2
10.8
8.8
7.8
11.3
10.9
10.4
9.3
7.7
10.1
6.7
7.7
7.8
8.6
9.9
9.3
8.3
-0.7
-2.1
-0.1
-3.5
-2.3
-0.5
0.0
0.6
-6.2
-4.0
18.5
2.3
1.1
-6.2
-10.1
Imports
Exports
-18.5
-11.4
44.9
-3.5
-4.6
-10.6
-17.2
-33.7
14.9
1.3
10.3
15.1
-6.1
-10.8
Sources: W.G. Hoffmann, Das Wachstum des deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin
1965); Groningen Growth and Development Centre, National historical accounts database,
http://www.rug.nl/feb/onderzoek/onderzoekscentra/ggdc/data/hna; Own calculations.
The end of 1925 saw the beginning of a short crisis, which was to last until the
autumn of the next year.61 Industry was hit hardest as a number of important
companies – most notably the Stinnes concern, comprising some 3000
manufacturing plants and 4500 plants – collapsed. The GDP shrank 4 per cent as the
added value in industry fell with over 9 per cent, while that of the agricultural sector
declined with almost 4 per cent.62 The crisis did almost result in a trade surplus: as
the domestic market diminished, so did imports, while industrial exports showed a
59
Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog? 49; Groningen Growth and Development Centre, National
historical accounts database, http://www.rug.nl/feb/onderzoek/onderzoekscentra/ggdc/data/hna; CBS, Macroeconomische ontwikkelingen, 28. More recent estimates suggest a faster initial recovery of the GDP, albeit with a
lower overall growth rate of 3.2 per cent for the period 1925-1929. Albrecht Ritschl and Mark Spoerer, ‘Das
Bruttosozialprodukt in Deutschland nach den amtlichen Volkseinkommens- und Sozialproduktsstatistiken 19011995.’ Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte, 1997/2, 53-54; Ritschl, Deutschlands Krise und Konjunktur.
60
W.G. Hoffmann, Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1965)
454-455. More recent estimates agree on the unevenness of growth. Ritschl and Spoerer, ‘Das
Bruttosozialprodukt in Deutschland’, 53-54.
61
For more on the second stabilization crisis of 1925-26: F. Blaich, Die Wirtschaftskrise 1925/26: von der
Erwerbslosenfürsorge zur Konjunkturpolitik (Kallmünz 1977); D. Hertz-Eichenrode, Wirtschaftskrise und
Arbeitsbeschaffung: Konjunkturpolitik 1925/26 und die Grundlagen der Krisenpolitik Brünings (Frankfurt 1982).
62
Hoffman, Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft, 454-455; Own calculations.
54
Jeroen Euwe 2
significant increase (Table 2.2).63 By the autumn of 1926, it seemed that Germany’s
economy was finally recovering, as interest rates were low, and new investments
were mostly done with German funds. Whereas in 1925 investments of only RM 75
million had been financed domestically, in 1926 this had grown to RM 1485
million.64 Now, stock prices – which had dropped sharply at the beginning of the
latest crisis – were recovering at a steady pace. Together with domestic and
international monetary stability, it seemed to indicate that in 1926 the golden years
had well and truly begun.
By the spring of 1927, more and more foreign money flowed into Germany,
however, and by April the Berlin stock exchange experienced a hausse. Germans
started to speculate using money borrowed from German banks, who themselves
were lending it abroad. The influx of foreign capital – which had to be converted into
Marks – was such that it became ever more difficult for the Reichsbank to remain in
control of the money supply, while its gold and foreign reserves where dwindling as
a consequence of the reparation payments and the passive current account.
Therefore, the Reichsbank put a stop to this practice by forcing banks to limit credits
to speculators, leading to Black Friday 13 May 1927, when the stock exchange
crashed.65 After the crash, prices on the stock exchange stabilized at a significantly
lower level. From then on they displayed an overall downward trend.66 Although
speculation with borrowed foreign money was effectively curtailed, Germany still
relied on foreign loans.
The high level of foreign debt incurred by banks and industry, national and
local governments, was much to the chagrin of Reichsbankpräsident Hjalmar
63
Rolf Wagenführ, ‘Die Bedeutung des Außenmarktes für die deutsche Industriewirtschaft. Die Exportquote der
deutschen Industrie von 1870 bis 1936.’ In: Ernst Wagemann, Sonderhefte des Instituts für Konjunkturforschung,
No. 41 (Berlin 1936) 32. Although according to Hoffmann the GDP decreased with 4.3 per cent, more recent
figures of Albrecht Ritschl suggest that the GDP still rose, albeit only slightly. A. Ritschl, Krise und Kunjunktur.
64
McNeil, American Money and the Weimar Republic; The German money market was also discussed in Dutch
papers: ‘Effecten- en Geldmarkt. Wekelijksch overzicht.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 20-11-1926 Avond, ‘
65
For an in-depth analysis of the monetary policy at the time: Balderston, The Origins and Course of the German
Economic Crisis, 135-155.
66
McNeil, American Money and the Weimar Republic, 136-137; Ritschl, Krise und Konjunktur, 114-115; Ritschl’s
source for data on the Berlin stock exchange is E.H. Wagemann, Konjunkturstatistisches Handbuch 1936 (Berlin
1935). Reichsbank policy during this period and the following years is a widely debated issue. Although
developments in money supply, interest rates, stock exchange etcetera are known, other aspects such as the
development of the GDP are still debated. Furthermore there is disagreement both on the policy as well as on
the intent of the Reichsbank and of Reichsbankpräsident Schacht. Finally there is a debate on the actual courses
of action open to the Reichsbank.
55
Jeroen Euwe 2
Schacht. Schacht’s view on foreign debt was a direct result of his background: as
currency commissioner he had been responsible for the introduction of the
Rentenmark, which marked the end of the 1923 hyperinflation. Not surprisingly, to
Schacht, any action that might threaten monetary stability was abhorrent. Both he
and Parker Gilbert – the Agent-General for Reparations Payments – were convinced
that German prosperity was not based on economic recovery, but on the inflow of
foreign loans. They both expressed this in public that same year. The structural trade
deficit supports their view. Although imports had decreased 11 per cent during the
short-lived crisis of 1926, afterwards they showed an impressive resurgence (Table
2.2). Reparations payments were thus not done out of a trade surplus or a surplus of
the current account, but, instead, both the payments and Germany’s trade deficit
were financed by capital imports from abroad, most importantly from the United
States, but also from the Netherlands, Great Britain, France and other countries.
The warnings by Schacht and Gilbert were widely publicized and had a
significant impact: German issues abroad became far less popular.67 In 1928 – as a
result of new policies of the American Federal Reserve System – credits from the US
decreased, while the French started to call in their loans. The effect would be only
transitory however. As the Dawes-plan had only been a stop-gap measure, intended
to assist German recovery and thus its ability to pay reparations – payments of
which were still problematic –, the Young commission started deliberations in 1929
to address the issues that had remained unsolved by the Dawes-plan. Thus it should
provide a definitive solution to the question of reparations. The Young-plan that was
adopted in January of the following year settled the total amount to pay, reduced
the yearly payments – and divided them into two parts: one unconditional, the other
postponable – and again involved substantial foreign credits for Germany. However,
the new round of international credit proved less popular than the Dawes-loans. In
the wake of the Wall Street crash of 1929, credit from the United States further
decreased. In Europe, there was still a widespread belief in a quick recovery from
last year’s crash. The banks were thus eager to secure the right to handle the
67
Ritschl, Krise und konjunktur, 128; McNeil, American Money and the Weimar Republic, 157.
56
Jeroen Euwe 2
issuance of the Young loan. In the end, however, this drove up the issue price and in
turn caused the loan to be less popular than had been expected.68
In 1928, the American economist James W. Angell – on a visit to Germany to do
research for a book on the recovery of the German economy – wrote: ‘Only six years
after her utter collapse, Germany is once again one of the great industrial
nations...and she is rapidly increasing her power. [...] It is one of the most
spectacular recoveries in the world’s entire economic history.’69 He seemed to be
right, as the German gross domestic product, production – with the exception of
agriculture – and foreign trade all exceeded the level attained in 1913, which given
the situation six years earlier was a significant accomplishment. As the influx of
foreign capital and the trade deficit – of which only some 10 per cent was offset by
way of a surplus in the services sector – have demonstrated, this was only possible
because of the inflow of foreign capital. By the time Angell wrote his ode to German
recovery, the economy already showed signs that not all was well. The production of
producer goods and net investment declined, imports decreased and economic
growth was slowing down (Table 2.2).70 The prices on the stock exchange had
regained some of the ground lost during May 1927s Black Friday, but they had
stabilized at a significantly lower level than during the boom and displayed a slight
downward trend.71 The gross domestic product, industrial production and exports all
reached their highest level in 1929 – a year that seemed to be a highpoint in German
recovery. Yet, the cyclical downturn was already in its second year. Foreign credits
were decreasing, the production of capital goods continued to decline, and
investments and imports decreased at a growing rate.72 Starting in June 1929, some
four months before the Wall Street crash, share prices in Germany were again going
68
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, passim.
James Angell, The Recovery of Germany (New Haven 1929) 2. Quoted in: Hans-Joachim Voth, With a Bang, Not
a Whimper: Pricking Germany’s ‘Stock Market Bubble’ in 1927 and the Slide into Depression, Discussion Paper
No. 3257, Centre for Economic Policy Research, March 2002: http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP3257.asp
(accessed 18-08-2012).
70
For investments and production: Hoffmann, Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft, 827-828. The data on
investment are disputed. See: Theodore Balderston, ‘Statistical Sources on German Investment 1924-1929.’ In:
Hans Mommsen, Dietmar Petzina, Bernd Weisbrod, Industrielles System und politische Entwicklung in der
Weimarer Republik, (Düsseldorf 1977) Band 1, 95-104.
71
Ritschl, Deutschlands Krise und Konjunktur, 115.
72
Ibidem 297 ff., Balderston, The origins and course of the German Economic Crisis, 333; C.H. Feinstein, P. Temin,
G. Toniolo, The World Economy between the World Wars (Oxford 2008) 86-90.
69
57
Jeroen Euwe 2
down. The German economy was in dire straits due to its weak financial position,
and was so well in advance of the crisis that started in this year.
Bookends to an era: political instability and economic crisis
Since Friedrich Ebert became chancellor in November 1918, the second cabinet of
Reich Chancellor Hermann Müller (1928-1930) was the twelfth of the Weimar
Republic. This coalition of social-democrats, liberals, and the catholic centre-party
was also increasingly under duress as Müller was forced to reform government
finances in order to balance the budget.73 Due to their political weakness, previous
cabinets as well had been unable to do so, but these could borrow on the
international capital markets, and therefore had been no immediate necessity to
balance the budget. Now however, the German state faced a financial crisis. The
Reichsbank kept the money supply tight, and borrowing on the international capital
markets had become almost impossible. Unless action was taken, Berlin would soon
not have enough cash on hand to fulfil its immediate obligations. Without foreign
loans and unable to expand the German money supply, the government was forced
into a deflationary policy of increasing the tax burden and cutting expenses in order
to be able to pay reparations. Considering the unpopularity of its deflationary policy,
the fall of Müller’s coalition was inevitable. In March 1930 a minority government
under the Zentrum politician Heinrich Brüning was installed.
In order to balance the budget, Brüning tried to increase taxes and lower
expenditures such as wages, just like his predecessor. When he as well proved
unable to obtain parliamentary consent for these proposals, Reich President Paul
von Hindenburg called new elections. By now, the political extremes – which had
always been present during the Republic, but had lost ground after the monetary
stabilization – had gained strong support. National-Socialists and Communists won,
which meant that the base of support for any stable government became narrow.
Unable to form a new coalition after the September elections, Brüning invoked a
Notverordnung – emergency decree. Under article 48 of the constitution, the Reich
73
Hein A.M. Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire. De economische betrekkingen van Nederland met zijn
belangrijkste handelspartners: Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië en België en de Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 19291926 (Amsterdam 1990) 109-110.
58
Jeroen Euwe 2
Chancellor was allowed to take emergency measures without prior consent of the
Reichstag. Basically, Bruning now governed by presidential decree. By circumventing
parliament he was thus able to implement his deflationary policy.74 It made Brünig,
extremely unpopular. He was called the Hungerkanzler – Hunger Chancellor. By
calling on the Notverordnung, Brüning effectively paved the way towards a future
dictatorship. The period of the Weimar Republic is thus bookended by similar
circumstances. The severe political instability revived as a consequence of the
economic-financial crises. While foreign financial aid helped to stabilize the
economic and political situation in 1924, in 1930 the lack of support helped to pave
the way for the Nazi’s seizure of power three years later. In fact, the artificial welfare
created by the inflow of foreign capital only covered the problems for a few years.
The financial problems combined with the political instability that in the end
led to Brüning’s government by presidential decree, first led to increased reluctance
of foreign creditors to provide further credits to the German banks and industry.
This was then followed by creditors calling in their short-term loans. In turn, this led
to a growing loss of confidence in the banks and a renewed flight of capital. The
banks had also speculated on the stock exchange. Consequently, they had
substantial amounts of their money tied up in shares that they were unable to sell
on short notice. Shares had also lost an appreciable amount of their value during the
ongoing baisse after the crash of 1927. Therefore, they were in acute danger of
becoming illiquid. The first Central European bank to fail was not a German, but an
Austrian bank, the Kreditanstalt, which announced its insolvency on 8 May 1931.
The Kreditanstalt was Austria’s largest bank, and its failure marked the start of a
banking crisis in all of Central Europe. Yet another wave of capital sought refuge
outside of Germany, and more foreign creditors called in their loans, causing a
downward spiral that led to the insolvency of German financial institutions. At that
time, banks in the United States were also in serious problems and tried to cash in
their assets. As these banks had often invested in Germany during the 1920s, the
loss of capital was not just caused by Germany, but was also a result of the American
problems. When Brüning – in an effort to gain political support for a round of
74
For an analysis of Brüning’s fiscal policy: Balderston, The origins and course of the German Economic Crisis,
266-329.
59
Jeroen Euwe 2
austerity-measures – declared on June 9th that before long, Germany would no
longer be able to pay reparations, it caused a further swelling of the outward flow of
currency. In just over two weeks, the Reichsbank lost over half of its reserves in gold
and hard currency.
On 20th June 1931, US president Herbert Hoover announced a one-year
moratorium on all war-debts – both German reparations and the inter-allied debts –
in the hope that this gesture would quell concerns and help stem the economic tide
in Europe and the United States. The moratorium, which in part due to French
objections only came into effect on 6 July, proved not enough to prevent the slide
into depression. A week later Germany’s second-largest bank – the Danat-bank
(Darmstädter- und Nationalbank) – failed, causing a run on the banks that could only
be stopped by declaring an extended bank holiday and a period of restricted
payments until the panic had subsided. The government used this period to
implement measures to stop the uncontrolled outflow of money, and to restructure
the financial sector by partially nationalizing a number of banks. Meanwhile,
President Hoover had instigated an international meeting of all creditors in London
between 20 and 23 July, to discuss the question of the German debts. This resulted
in another meeting in Basel a month later, were an agreement was reached on a
moratorium – Stillhalte – on German short-term debts by private debtors. Though
initially for a six-month period, the Standstill Agreement would be extended
throughout the Depression. In April 1932, a similar moratorium was agreed upon for
public debts. At the Lausanne Conference in the summer of that year, German
reparations obligations were suspended.75 Simultaneously with the first Stillhalte,
German currency was no longer freely convertible, as the government set foreign
exchange restrictions. The volume and nature of foreign trade was now governed by
the allocation of foreign currency.76
The reparations payments by themselves were not the reason that the
German economy went into such a steep depression, but the way these payments
influenced German politics did do considerable harm. Together with the inflation of
75
For an overview of the international economic diplomacy during the Great Depression, with a strong focus on
Germany’s role: Patricia Clavin, The Failure of Economic Diplomacy. Britain, Germany, France and the United
States, 1931-36 (London 1996).
76
Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire, 30, 72 ff.
60
Jeroen Euwe 2
the 1920s that undermined the savings ratio, it caused Germany to become a debtor
nation. When the financial markets became unstable, this proved to be an
unsolvable problem. The capital flight that started in 1929 and would continue in
several waves, and the steep decline in long-term credit that led to an increase in
short-term credit, combined with the governments’ austerity measures, made not
just the economic depression in Germany especially steep and deep, but also caused
the return of political instability that had plagued the first post-war period.
61
Jeroen Euwe 2
2.6
The Netherlands after the war
In the Netherlands, the end of hostilities was greeted with great enthusiasm, in the
first place because it meant the end of the pointless bloodshed just across the
border in the fields of Flanders. This enthusiasm was, however, also motivated by
economic reasons. After four years of decreasing trade, the resumption of foreign
trade meant that domestic demand would be fulfilled again. World markets would
once again be available for Dutch exports. Dutch neutrality had left the production
capacity of agriculture, industry and shipping for the most part intact, and wartime
adaptation had created new competitive branches. All sectors of the Dutch economy
were therefore in an excellent position to profit optimally from both foreign and
domestic demand that arose immediately after the German capitulation. The Dutch
citizenry was eager to buy, not just familiar products such as tea and coffee – the
resumption of maritime traffic rejuvenated trade with the Dutch East-Indies – but
also a variety of industrial products that the previous years had been in increasingly
short supply. Already by November/December 1918, the economy was booming,
with both the industrial and the service sectors showing growth rates of over 10 per
cent.77 A problem with this boom was that it was financed by monetary expansion,
what threatened the stability of the guilder as became clear from a 35.6 per cent
depreciation of the Dutch currency against the US Dollar during the years 19201921.78 There were others serious problems as well. As much as trade with
Germany, Great Britain, Belgium and France increased, with most of these countries
the trade balance showed a substantial deficit.79 The imports were predominantly
raw materials – such as coal – and industrial products. Dutch industry was as yet
unable to counterbalance the sheer volume of imports, as the high exchange rate of
the Dutch guilder made it hard to export to these former European belligerents,
where inflation was not fast enough to compensate for the depreciation of their
currencies. As a consequence, in the surrounding countries, prices were low, too low
for Dutch industry to compete with. The first two years after the war the trade
77
e
Van Zanden, Een klein land in de 20 eeuw, 133-134.
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V., Verslag door den president en Verslag van de commissarissen uitgebracht in de
algemeene vergadering van stemgerechtigde aandeelhouders op 21 juni 1921 (Amsterdam 1921) 16; De Bie, Een
doorlopende groote roes, 115-139; J.L. van Zanden, The Economic History of the Netherlands 1914-1995. A small
open economy in the ‘long’ twentieth century (London 1998) 95-101.
79
CBS, Zeventig jaren statistiek in tijdreeksen, 1899-1969 (The Hague 1970) 95-96.
78
62
Jeroen Euwe 2
deficits were 50 and 49 per cent respectively.80 Especially the German depreciation
was damaging. Decreased exports and the inability to compete with German
products on the home market, caused part of Dutch industry to experience what
nowadays is regarded a slump.81
Table 2.3: Dutch GDP and foreign trade in million guilders, 1921-1931. In 1921 prices.
Year
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
GDP
5679
6048
6173
6618
6857
7320
7660
8032
8222
8129
7756
Imports of
goods
2500
2738
2701
3037
3163
3353
3496
3659
3833
3655
3486
Exports of
goods
1566
1754
1906
2341
2495
2593
2806
2929
2922
2687
2463
Trade
balance
-934
-984
-796
-695
-668
-760
-690
-730
-911
-968
-1023
Mutations in percentages of
the previous year
GDP Imports Exports
---6.5
9.5
12.2
2.1
-1.3
8.6
7.2
12.4
22.8
3.7
4.2
6.6
6.7
6.0
3.9
4.6
4.3
8.2
4.8
4.7
4.4
2.4
4.8
-0.3
-1.1
-4.6
-8.0
-4.6
-4.6
-8.2
Sources: CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen, 1921-1939 en 1969-1985. Een vergelijking op basis van
herziene gegevens voor het interbellum (The Hague 1987); Own calculations.
Within Dutch politics, voices were raised in opposition to free trade. Already in
November 1920, the Catholic party, whose electorate was to a substantial degree
dependent upon small-scale, home market-oriented industries that were hit hard,
were arguing for measures to protect these industries.82 A few small concessions
were made indeed. From 1921 a special tariff was levied on cigars, and from May
1923 until June 1924 import quota protected the shoe industry.83 However, both
measures were solely aimed at protecting these industries from what was
considered an unfair German advantage due to currency depreciation. Furthermore,
the agricultural sector together with the trade and shipping sectors – all of which
relied on exports and therefore strongly objected to any trade policy that might
80
Ibidem 92; Own calculations.
Sluyterman, Kerende Kansen, 119. See also: Van Zanden, Een klein land in de 20e eeuw, 128-131; B. van Ark, J.
de Haan, H.J. de Jong, ‘Characteristics of economic growth in the Netherlands during the postwar period.’ In: N.
Crafts, G. Toniolo, eds., Economic Growth in Europe since 1945 (Cambridge 1996) 290-327.
82
P.A. Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek (Utrecht 1948) 59-60.
83
Joh. de Vries, ‘Het economische leven 1918-1940.’ In: Algemene Geschiedenis der Nederlanden (Haarlem 1988)
deel 14, 102-146, here 135; Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 92.
81
63
Jeroen Euwe 2
incur retaliation – had blocked protection of the shoe industry for so long that by the
time the law passed, the worst of German competition was over. The reliance of the
Dutch economy on foreign trade ensured that free trade remained the corner stone
of the Dutch trade policy.
Doubtless, this was helped by the recovery that by 1924 had set in (Table
2.3). Due especially to the revival of exports to Germany, exports rose almost 23 per
cent in a single year. Naturally, imports grew as well, but far less so than exports,
causing the trade deficit to decrease by 12.7 per cent (table 2.3). However, there
were other factors which caused a – albeit low – level of protection of Dutch trade
interests. In 1924 the Dutch import duties – which had been basically unchanged
from their introduction in 1862 – were reviewed. Finance minister Hendrik Colijn –
Calvinist, former soldier of the Royal Netherlands East-Indian Army (KNIL) and
former Royal Dutch Shell Director – was enacting a stringent austerity policy, cutting
expenditures and enforcing a deflationary policy. The subsequent rise of import
duties on manufactured goods from 5 per cent to 8 per cent should therefore be
viewed more as a budgetary measure than as an act of protectionism. That it could
be of use in trade negotiations was recognized as a bonus.84
In the spring of 1925, Great Britain and a number of other countries –
including the Netherlands – returned to the gold standard. By then, most of the
monetary problems in Central and Eastern Europe had been dealt with, most
importantly those of Germany. Stable monetary relations helped the revival of
international trade, but protectionism remained a problem, especially for smaller
countries. They turned to the League of Nations, which in 1927 resulted in a
conference – chaired by Colijn, who by then was out of office – that called for an end
to protectionism. In spite of the initial optimism, this conference, and those that
followed, did nothing to stem the tide of increasing protectionism.85 Still, from 1924
until 1928, Dutch exports showed an average annual increase of 9 per cent (i.e. 9 per
84
Van Zanden, The Economic History of the Netherlands, 105; Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 94-98; De
Vries, ‘Het economische leven 1918-1940’, 134-135.
85
Hein A.M. Klemann, ‘The ‘Tommies’ or the ‘Jerries’: Dutch Trade Problems in the Inter-War Period.’ In: Nigel J.
Ashton and Duco Hellema, eds., Unspoken Allies: Anglo-Dutch relations since 1780 (Amsterdam 2001) 101-120,
here 104-107.
64
Jeroen Euwe 2
cent cumulative annual growth between 1923 and 1928). Economic growth during
this period was no less impressive, as the GDP on average increased by 5 per cent.86
Although the economy as a whole did well, not all businesses thrived. Shipbuilding, a
sector that had grown rapidly during the war, was faced with an over-abundance of
available tonnage in shipping and a subsequent lack of orders. More important,
however, was the increasing difficulties the agricultural sector experienced. In 1920,
the price level for its products had been very high. In two years however, prices
about halved. The price of labour in the sector was relatively high, and the sector
saw its profitability vastly diminish.87 During the second half of the 1920s, the Dutch
agricultural sector would slide into depression. Both 1928 and the next year saw
worldwide record yields for crops, and everywhere prices almost halved. Prices for
animal products followed soon after.88 Because of the availability of cheap grain,
however, animal husbandry was still relatively profitable. Therefore, an increasing
number of farmers now kept livestock that was fed with the proceeds of their
farmland. The low price level was not the only problem, however. Exports to
Germany were in decline because of the successful German agricultural lobby for
protection. By the summer of 1931, the German market shrank to a minimum as
exchange control in Germany further reduced imports of that country. Great Britain,
the other main market for Dutch exports, thus gained in importance. When just a
few months later, in September, Britain was forced to abandoned the gold standard
and the pound sterling devalued, the Dutch economy was hit hard. The main
competition to Dutch agricultural exports came from Scandinavia. Since these
countries devalued their currencies as well, Dutch agriculture was no longer able to
compete, and slid further into depression.
The economy as a whole had felt the onset of the crisis in 1929, but this had
only manifested itself in a decrease in growth of the GDP from 4.8 to 2.4 per cent. By
1931, both exports and imports had decreased substantially for two consecutive
years, and the GDP was declining at a growing rate (Table 2.3). Trade with Germany
86
CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen.
J.H. de Ru, Landbouw en Maatschappij: analyse van een boerenbeweging in de crisisjaren (Deventer 1979) 7475.
88
Knibbe, Agriculture in the Netherlands 1851-1950, 254.
87
65
Jeroen Euwe 2
was limited by exchange control, soon to be governed by a clearing system, while
due to the Dutch refusal to devalue the guilder, Dutch products were unable to
compete on the world market.89 The policy of free trade was increasingly under
duress. Faced with increasing troubles, it was not Dutch industry, but agriculture –
until then because of its reliance on exports firmly opposed to protectionist trade
policies – that successfully called for protectionist measures in 1930. In 1931, wheatgrowing farmers received protection, and in the years that followed more and more
products were included.90 The traditional Dutch policy of free trade had given way to
agricultural protection at the expense of the interests of industry. Only when in 1936
the Dutch finally abandoned the gold standard and devalued the guilder, the
economy started to recover.
89
90
For an analysis of Dutch trade and trade policy after 1929: Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire.
Van Zanden, The Economic History of the Netherlands, 59.
66
Jeroen Euwe 2
2.7
Economic interdependence and interwoven economies: consequences
The fact that during the second half of the nineteenth century, the economies of the
Netherlands and Germany became intertwined had ensured that Germany
respected Dutch neutrality during the First World War. During the 1920s, the
economic bonds would continue to shape the political relations between the two
countries. Apart from minor political conflicts surrounding the compensation of war
damages and the long-running discussion on the border in the Ems-Dollard region,
these relations were dominated by severe conflicts regarding a number of German
political initiatives that threatened to have a negative influence on the economic
ties.
Germany’s policies were influenced to a large extent by the necessity to pay
the yearly reparations to the former Entente. Not only did the German economy
have to generate the yearly sum required, this money also had to be converted into
foreign currency.91 To do so, it needed either an active trade balance, or to borrow
large amounts of foreign currency. Furthermore, since the 1890s, Germany’s trade
balance had been passive. Until the war, this had been compensated by capital gains
from abroad. Much of this capital had been confiscated during the war, and with
Germany’s greater dependence on imports of food and raw materials due to the loss
of extensive territory, this meant that imports were now structurally higher. 92 Thus,
in both trade and economic policy great efforts were made to generate the
conditions under which such an active trade balance would materialize.
The destination of Dutch exports was mostly Germany and Great Britain.
Both countries were by far the most important customers for Dutch products, their
relative importance shifting with the economic situation in either country. During
the German crises of 1921-1923, 1926, and during the first two years of the Great
Depression, when Germany was hit especially hard, Great Britain replaced Germany
as most important export destination. All other post-war years, Germany fulfilled
this role. Because the Dutch trade balance with Britain was usually substantially
91
More on the transfer problem: A.O. Ritschl, ‘The German Transfer Problem, 1920-1933: A Sovereign Debt
Perspective.’ European Review of History (forthcoming); W.L. Korthals Altes, ‘De ontwikkeling van het
transferprobleem en de Duitse herstelbetalingen na de Eerste Wereldoorlog.’ NEHA Economisch en SociaalHistorisch Jaarboek, Deel 52 (Amsterdam 1989) 288-303.
92
Niehusen, Die Hamburger Kaufmannschaft, 16.
67
Jeroen Euwe 2
active whereas with Germany it was highly passive, in terms of total volume of
trade, Germany was by far the most important trading partner. The importance of
Germany as an economic partner, both in trade and in transport and related
services, made that any German policy that threatened the status quo, caused an
immediate crisis. These would begin with an uproar in Dutch business circles, and
subsequently in public opinion, ending with a diplomatic crisis that at times was
aggravated by private initiatives such as boycotts of German products. For a
considerable time, such conflicts were entered into from what was believed to be a
position of strength.
Until January 1925, the treaty of Versailles restricted Berlin’s freedom of
movement in formulating its own trade policy. In trying to minimise imports, Berlin
could only use internal political instruments, such as the Seehafenausnahmetarife –
cheap railway transport to the German ports.93 By lowering the costs of rail
transport, this policy promoted the use of the railways to German ports, which
minimized the importation of transport-related services. However, the treaty of
Versailles stipulated that Allied ports had to be granted the same lowered tariffs,
leaving only the Dutch ports negatively affected. In the Netherlands, there was no
real understanding for the German position, and the policy elicited strong protests.
Possibly because of a belief that they were in a position of strength, Dutch
negotiators of the government, the transport and the banking sector, all showed
little understanding for the German position and basically demanded concessions.
This perception of Dutch ascendency was not altogether unwarranted, as the Dutch
were of essential importance to the functioning of the German industry. Out of selfinterest, in 1920 the Dutch government – at the instigation of Dutch business circles
– furnished a credit of 200 million guilders to Germany, in the hope that this would
be the start of a flow of international credits to help the recovery of the German
industry. Forty million of this credit was earmarked for the purchase of Dutch
foodstuffs; the remainder was a renewable credit to purchase overseas raw
93
For an analysis of the resulting diplomatic conflict: J.P.B. Jonker, ‘Koopman op een dwaalspoor.’ Jaarboek van
het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: overgelegd aan de Staten-Generaal (The Hague 1989) 181-201; J.
Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife tijdens de Weimarrepublik 1919-1933.’ In: Joh. De Vries,
Ondernemende geschiedenis: 22 opstellen geschreven bij het afscheid van Mr. H. van Riel als voorzitter van de
Vereniging het Nederlandsch Economisch-Historisch Archief (The Hague 1977) 321-343.
68
Jeroen Euwe 2
materials for the German industry. The Dutch economic ties with Germany thus
influenced the economic and foreign policy of the Netherlands. All over the country
a quick German economic recovery was considered important to both the political
stability of Europe – a communist take-over was feared as a stepping-stone to the
rest of the continent – and the future prosperity of Europe. Influential Dutch
businessmen and bankers believed that without a strong German economy, Europe
would never financially recover from the war. Furthermore, every German bank of
any importance had established a presence in Amsterdam, a financial centre that
after 1918 played a crucial role in financing German foreign trade. The scope of
operations of these German banks was dependent upon the goodwill of the Dutch
central bank. It was generally believed among German bankers that the extensive
credit facilities granted by Dutch banks could easily be cut off on orders of the
central bank.
In January 1925, Berlin reviewed its trade policy. The new tariffs caused
uproar in the Netherlands. However, from the German point of view, in the ensuing
trade negotiations, the Dutch were treated almost benevolently. The Dutch free
trade policy meant that The Hague did not have any substantial negotiating room, as
it did not have anything to offer. Free trade meant that all countries received
preferential treatment. Yet, by extending the credit treaty of 1920, the Dutch
received considerably reduced tariffs on their most important export products. The
Dutch compensation was to an important degree pro forma, as Germany by now
could turn to other financial markets. In the Netherlands, the episode led to a
renewed call for some form of protection, now in the guise of what was called an
active trade policy.94
As the decade wound to its close, conflict would deepen. From 1927 on, the
German agricultural crisis led to increased agricultural protectionism. In the
Netherlands, both the agricultural sector and industry tried to influence Dutch
policy. When this did not work, they turned to the public to organize boycotts. In
Germany, these in turn led interest groups from industry – the Reichsverband der
deutschen Industrie (German Association of Industry) – and Rhine shipping – the
94
‘Actieve handelspolitiek.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, Tuesday 15 December 1925, Avondblad.
69
Jeroen Euwe 2
Verein zur Wahrung der Rhein-Schiffahrtsinteressen (Association to Protect the
Interests of Rhine Shipping) – to pressure Berlin to accommodate Dutch concerns.
70
Jeroen Euwe 2
2.8
Conclusion
The First World War proved a shock to a system of economic interdependence that
had come into being in the wake of the Rheinisch-Westphalian coal-based
industrialization. Although initially Antwerp and Hamburg seemed to become
Germany’s main ports, with the explosive growth of Rhine shipping due to the
rapidly decreasing cost of barge shipping versus railroad freight, at the end of the
nineteenth century the port of Rotterdam took over this role. At the same time,
Dutch industry and agriculture had become highly dependent on imports and
exports, especially with its eastern neighbour. During the years to come, the Dutch
government, as well as interest groups, attempted to minimize the resultant
economic interdependence or, to the contrary, to restore it to its pre-war level. On
the one hand, this proved impossible as in the interim the world had undergone an
economic transformation. On the other hand, as transport and trade are not easily
replaced and important parts of these ties were structural in nature, a certain level
of interdependence was unavoidable. Matters were further complicated by the
economic and political problems experienced by Germany throughout the Weimar
Republic. As a consequence of the Versailles Treaty, until 1925, it was unable to
formulate its own trade policy. As it was nonetheless forced to optimize its trade
balance in order to obtain an active current account, and faced with several
economic crises that influenced domestic politics, its trade policy was far more
complicated than merely optimizing straightforward trade flows. To the Dutch, the
need for a German economic recovery was evident, and they tried to stimulate such
a recovery by both financial assistance and diplomacy. That some measures to boost
the German economy – for instance the Seehafenausnahmetarife or protective
measures in favour of the agricultural sector – were detrimental to Dutch interests,
was met with feelings that ranged from misunderstanding to sheer outrage,
however.
The next four chapters provide an analysis of the various aspects of the
economic ties between the Netherlands and Germany and their effects upon
political relations. Conclusions on the development and extent of the economic
relations, as well as the implications for the political relations between the two
countries, will be drawn in the final chapter.
71
Jeroen Euwe 3
Chapter 3 – Monetary and financial relations
3.1
Introduction
World War I and its aftermath led to a reshuffling of Dutch-German economic
relations. The war had disrupted the transport flows that were important to both
the industry in the Ruhr area and the Dutch transport sector. After the end of the
war, the blockade of Germany by the Entente, and then the German economic
troubles as well as the worldwide economic crisis, caused a slow recovery of trade
and transport relations between the Netherlands and Germany. The economic
prospects of Germany were dire. High inflation, political turmoil, famine, the loss of
significant areas of high industrial and agricultural importance, and the prospect of
punitive damages to be paid to the Entente – the height of which were being
discussed at Versailles – weakened the German economy. Dutch government,
business, and the general public were all very much aware that a German economic
recovery was of the utmost importance to the Netherlands. Already in the closing
stages of the war, in October 1918, the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Handelsblad
voiced Dutch concerns in an article called ‘The after-thirst’: ‘Will this war really be
followed by an ‘after-war’? Will the Allies thus only be satisfied when Germany has
been destroyed, whatever the cost to them and to others?’1
Germany was not the only country in tatters. Many continental European countries
were experiencing monetary collapse, and purchasing power was low. In the former
belligerent countries, troops were returning home and needed jobs, while industry
and transport were disorganized as the wartime economy had to adapt to
peacetime needs. The war had severed long-standing trade relations, in response to
which new industries had been established that had thrived in the absence of
external competition. Now, these same industries needed protection from outside
competition in order to survive. Rampant economic disorder and protectionism
threatened the re-emergence of the pre-war globalized economy, and thus the
interests of the Dutch commerce. Influential Dutch bankers such as C.E. ter Meulen
1
‘De Na-Dorst.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 19-10-1918, Ochtend.
72
Jeroen Euwe 3
of Hope & Co. and G. Vissering, president of the Nederlandsche Bank, the central
bank, were therefore internationally active, trying to revive trade by promoting
plans for international loans, or even barter or bilateral clearing.2 A central part of
these plans was, of course, the reintegration of Germany in international trade. Not
surprisingly, giving his function as president of the Dutch central bank, Vissering’s
plan focussed on ensuring monetary stability in Germany, after which a group of
countries – amongst which the Netherlands – would each furnish extensive credits.
Dutch business interests and the government felt that either of those two aspects
would not be feasible for the foreseeable future. They needed a quick German
economic recovery, so transport flows would resume and trade with Germany would
revive. Not only had Dutch exports to its neighbour shrunk drastically, the import of
German coal – which was crucial for the Dutch industry – had fallen back so much,
that Dutch industry might have to shut down.3 As the German economic difficulties
were threatening to have disastrous consequences for the economy, the
government negotiated a coal and credit treaty with Berlin.4 With this treaty of
1920, Germany was granted a loan to buy Dutch foodstuffs, and a revolving credit to
finance raw materials for the German industry. While these loans – although
substantial – by themselves were not enough to satisfy Germany’s need for funds, it
was hoped that other countries would follow the Dutch example. Widespread
monetary instability in Europe and a worldwide economic crisis starting later that
year meant that – even if they would be willing – others could not follow.
The credit marked a crucial shift in Dutch-German economic relations. During
the war, Dutch financial relations with the outside world had started to change,
when exports had mostly been financed through the Amsterdam financial centre
instead of London. After the war, Amsterdam – flushed with money from both Dutch
as well as foreign sources – was able to expand and consolidate its new role, and
during the 1920s it became the most important international financial centre of
2
Archive DNB, 2.1/332/1, Kredietverlening aan het buitenland. Duitschland, Verenigd Koninkrijk, Verenigde
Staten van Amerika, Plan ter Meulen. Various statutes, reports, meetings; Archive DNB, 7/300/1, Vergaderingen
en besprekingen betreffende de oprichting in Nederland van de Vereeniging voor den goederenruil. February June 1920.
3
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Commissie Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag 1920, 1919-1946, nummer toegang
2.08.26, inventarisnummer 1, Report of a meeting of the German committee for the negotiation of a Dutch loan
with the Dutch committee, 23 December 1919.
4
‘Het Crediet van 200 millioen aan Duitschland.’ Handelingen Tweede Kamer, 1008 (1920); Idem, 1094 (1920).
73
Jeroen Euwe 3
continental Europe. In most years of that decade, Paris was a financial centre with a
larger volume, but as much of its transactions were just internally French, its
international dealings were far less than those of Amsterdam.5 Once the German
currency was stabilized and German trade expanded, Amsterdam – together with
New York and London – became one of Germany’s most important creditors. The
economies of both countries would once again be intertwined, or as Theodor Metz –
the secretary of the Nederlandsche Kamer van Koophandel voor Duitschland – the
Dutch Chamber of Commerce for Germany in Frankfurt – wrote by the end of the
decade: ‘the Netherlands are today the most important buyer of German products,
one of Germany’s largest suppliers and with their colonies Germany’s largest
commercial partner. Germany is its main supplier and buyer.’6
Broad circles in Dutch society thought that the newfound role of the Dutch
financial sector as financier to Germany would result in political leverage. One by
one, the Dutch central bank, trade and industry, the government, and the general
public would find that this was not quite this straightforward. Nevertheless, in trade
and in transport policy, financial incentives and threats would play an important
role. Of similar importance to the changing economic ties were the monetary
relations. Depreciation and inflation of the German currency caused a stream of
flight capital towards those countries with stable currencies, foremost the
Netherlands. In their wake came German banks, which facilitated the export of
capital and its reinvestment. The founding of such banks was not the only result of
German foreign direct investments (FDI’s) in the Netherlands. German trading,
transport, and industrial companies also established subsidiaries. Moreover, to
Dutch companies that were active on the German market, depreciation made
investments in that country highly attractive. These mutual FDI’s were not a new
feature of Dutch-German economic relations. However, due to the impact of the
5
Although not all Dutch banks had their headquarters in Amsterdam, Amsterdam was the financial centre of the
country. Those banks that did not have their headquarters in the capital, for instance the Rotterdamsche
Bankvereeniging, Marx & Co., and the Diskonto Maatschappij, most often had their headquarters in Rotterdam
or in The Hague. Nevertheless, the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging – the second-largest Dutch bank – had an
office in Amsterdam that was responsible for the bulk of their business. See: R3101/660 fol.108-109, Von
Humboldt, Kaiserlich Deutsches General-Konsulat für die Niederlande, Amsterdam, to Reichskanzler Bethmann
Holweg, Berlin. 13 January 1917.
6
Th. Metz, Die Niederlande als Käufer, Hersteller, Vermittler und Kreditgeber: grundsätzliches zum deutschniederländischen Warenaustausch (Leipzig 1930) 16, 20-21.
74
Jeroen Euwe 3
war and its economic consequences for post-war Germany both these investments
and the financial relations between the two countries changed radically. The basic
structure of their economic ties remained intact, but the financial flows had been
altered.
75
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.2
The development of Amsterdam as an international financial centre
In the 1860s and early 1870s, in the Netherlands, a number of banks were founded
which would develop into major Dutch banks. Thus, the country saw the emergence
of a modern banking system.7 The connection to Germany, which at that time was
turning into an important economic hinterland to the Netherlands,8 was already
firmly established by the founding of the Rotterdamsche Bank in 1863 and the
Amsterdamsche Bank in December 1871. Originally, eighty percent of the shares in
the Amsterdamsche Bank were in German hands, and German capital also
participated – although to a far lesser degree – in the new Rotterdamsche Bank. Its
main founding partners were the German Darmstädter Bank, the A.
Schaafhausen’scher Bankverein, and the Österreichische Creditanstalt für Handel
und Gewerbe, with smaller contributions by a number of Dutch banks.9 Several
decades later, both banks were in the top-five of the Dutch banks. Originally, the
Amsterdamsche Bank was intended to stimulate trade with Germany, as well as
connect the German and Dutch money markets, the market for short-term loans. On
top of that, it should stimulate foreign investments in the Netherlands. This foreign
capital was mostly of German origin, as the German money market was
exceptionally liquid as a result of French payments after the Franco-Prussian War of
1870-1871.10 The Amsterdam capital market – the market for loans for a period of
more than a year – was at that time an international capital market of some
importance.11 Partly as a result of a relative lack of domestic securities – Dutch
companies preferred other means to finance their needs – Dutch investors were
interested in foreign securities.12 Apart from investments in the Dutch colonies,
7
W. J. Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum: een beschrijvende critische en vergelijkende studie (PhDthesis Gand University 1937) 19.
8
Hein A.M. Klemann, Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog? Nederland-Duitsland: Economische integratie en
politieke consequenties 1860-2000 (Rotterdam 2006) 15-28.
9
H. Riemens, De financiële ontwikkeling van Nederland (Amsterdam 1949) 66; G.M. Verrijn Stuart, Bankpolitiek
rd
(Wassenaar 3 ed. 1935) 125; K. Strasser, Die deutschen Banken im Ausland. Entwicklungsgeschichte und
Wirtschaftliche bedeutung (Münich 1924) 87.
10
P.C. Harthoorn, Hoofdlijnen uit de ontwikkeling van het moderne bankwezen in Nederland vóór de concentratie
(Rotterdam 1928) 64.
11
W.J. Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 20; F.H. Repelius, ‘Niederlande, Geld- und Kapitalmarkt.’ In:
M. Palyi, P. Quittner (eds), Handwörterbuch des Bankwesens (Berlin 1933) 383-387; H.M. Hirschfeld, ‘Amsterdam
comme centre financier international.’ Revue Économique Internationale (July 1924) 7-24, here 9; ‘Amsterdam
als internationaal financieel centrum. I.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 19 Sept. 1925; ‘Amsterdam als
internationaal financieel centrum. II.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 20 Sept. 1925.
12
A.J. Veenendaal, Slow Train to Paradise. How Dutch Investment Helped Build American Railroads (Stanford
1996) 5, 33; J. Barendregt, ‘Op weg naar nationale bekendheid, het handelsbankwezen tussen 1870 en 1914.’
76
Jeroen Euwe 3
considerable sums were invested in other European countries, North and South
America, Asia and Africa.13 Especially Russian bonds and American mortgage banks
and railways were in high demand. Amsterdam was even a key financier of the
railways in the United States.14 Dutch investments in foreign securities grew from a
total of ƒ 643 million in 1854-57 to ƒ 2,204 million in 1879-82; ƒ 2,414 million when
adjusted for deflation. This was a growth of almost 5.5 per cent annually.15 During
the period 1854-57 total Dutch foreign investments in securities were an equivalent
to 88 per cent of the average gross domestic product, while this was and 195 per
cent in the period 1879-1882.16 Possession of domestic securities remained fairly
constant during the period, increasing from ƒ 1,122 million to 1,190 million (1,282
when adjusted), a growth of only 0.5 per cent annually. It illustrates how few
domestic issues were available at that time. A generally favourable economic
climate, starting around 1895 and lasting until the outbreak of the Great War,
caused an increased activity on the capital market, as not only established
industries, but also new capital-intensive companies such as the chemical industry
were attracting capital. 17 Domestic issues thus gained in volume at the expense of
foreign issues. Nevertheless, on the eve of the Great War foreign securities – Dutch
colonial securities excluded – still amounted to 47 per cent of the Amsterdam capital
market.18
An important part in the economic upswing was caused by the burgeoning
transit traffic and associated activity through the port of Rotterdam as a result of the
blooming of the German hinterland. Transit traffic at Rotterdam – 5 million tonnes in
1896 – had doubled by 1907.19 The growing need of funds led to a concentration in
Joh. de Vries, W. Vroom and T. de Graaf (eds), Wereldwijd bankieren. ABN Amro 1824-1999 (Amsterdam 1999)
127-184, here 173.
13
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 19; K.D. Bosch, De Nederlandse beleggingen in de Verenigde
Staten (Amsterdam 1948) 74.
14
F. de Roos, W.J. Wieringa, Een halve eeuw rente in Nederland (Schiedam 1953) 8, 38; Hartmann, Amsterdam
als financieel centrum, 19; Veenendaal, Slow Train to Paradise, 174.
15
C.A. Verrijn Stuart, Inleiding tot de beoefening der statistiek (Haarlem 1917) 355; Own calculations.
16
CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen, 1800-1999 (Amsterdam 2001); Own calculations.
17
Verrijn Stuart, Inleiding tot de beoefening der statistiek, 355.
18
E. Hellauer, Internationale Finanzplätze. Ihr Wesen und ihre Entstehung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung
Amsterdams (Berlin 1936) 135.
19
H.M. Hirschfeld, Nieuwe stroomingen in het Nederlandsche bankwezen (Roermond 1925) 9. It should be noted
that the figures regarding the port of Rotterdam are unreliable, as has been stated by F.M.M. Goey, (2003),
Database on cargo flows in the port of Rotterdam, 1880-2000; Goederenoverslag Rotterdamse haven, 18802000. https://easy.dans.knaw.nl/ui/datasets/id/easy-dataset:39487 (accessed on 17/10/2012); The assertion
made by Hirschfeld is used here solely to indicate that transit traffic grew considerably.
77
Jeroen Euwe 3
banking circles. The process is widely regarded as having started in 1911 with the
merger of the Rotterdamsche Bank and the Deposito- & Adminstratiebank into the
Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging (Rotterdam Bank Union).20 By way of mergers,
participations, or downright acquisitions of mainly local or regional banks, large
banking corporations with greatly increased resources came into being. Two
decades later, when the concentration process had run its course, the majority of
Dutch banks were part of one of the groups headed by either the Twentsche Bank,
the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, the Nederlandsche Handel-Maatschappij, the
Amsterdamsche Bank or the Incasso-Bank.21 Before the onset of the World War I,
the impact of this process was negligible however.
In contrast to the capital market, the money market was almost entirely
local.22 The vast majority of funds were furnished as so-called prolongatiekrediet:
renewable credits on a monthly basis, using stocks as collateral. Call loans (day-today loans), beleeningen (three month loans using stocks as collateral) and
acceptances (in the form of reimbursement credits a short-term, usually three
months, credit to finance imports and exports, in the form of financial bills a shortterm credit) were all of negligible importance. Much of the Dutch imports and
exports were either financed by prolongatie credits, or through the London
acceptance market, with prices and acceptances in pounds sterling.23 As of July
1914, according to an inquiry by the Nederlandsche Bank, the volume of the
outstanding loans on the money market amounted to only ƒ 325 million, or 13.5 per
cent of the 1913 GDP.24
20
More on the issue of the concentration in the banking business can be found in: J.P.B. Jonker, ‘Spoilt for
Choice? Banking Concentration and the Structure of the Dutch Capital Market, 1900-1940.’ In: Y. Cassis, G.D.
Feldman, U. Olsson, ed., The Evolution of Financial Institutions and Markets in Twentieth-century Europe
(Aldershot 1995) 187-208; Joh. de Vries, Geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche Bank. Vijfde deel: De Nederlandsche
Bank van 1914 tot 1948. Visserings tijdvak 1914-1931 (Amsterdam 1989) 85-92, 203-213; Verrijn Stuart,
Bankpolitiek; W.M. Westerman, De concentratie in ons bankwezen (Den Haag 1920).
21
Verrijn Stuart, Bankpolitiek 130-131, 208-213, 215.
22
P.J.C. Tetrode, ‘Het Buitenlandsch Kapitaal in Nederland.’ Economisch Statistische Berichten, 31 Jan.1923, 8688, here 88. P.J.C. Tetrode was a member of the board of directors of the Nederlandsche Bank.
23
W.J. Schmitz, Der Amsterdamer Geldmarkt mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der Zinsschwankungen (Cologne
1931) 31, 37; A. Houwink, Acceptcrediet. Economische en bankpolitieke beschouwingen over den in het
bankaccept belichaamden credietvorm (Amsterdam 1929) 35.
24
C.D. Jongman, De Nederlandse geldmarkt (Leiden 1960) 156; Jan-Pieter Smits, Edwin Horlings, Jan Luiten van
Zanden, Dutch GNP and its Components, 1800-1913 (Groningen 2000) 220; Own calculations. For a concise
analysis of Dutch monetary policy during the period: Ronald van der Bie, ‘Een doorlopende groote roes’: de
economische ontwikkeling van Nederland, 1913-1921 (Amsterdam 1995) 115-119. The Nederlandsche Bank was
a private institution, which by law has received a so-called patent or charter to issue banknotes. The bank was
restricted by a number of regulations, but the government had no direct influence on its policy.
78
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.3
The First World War
The First World War would drastically change the outlook of the Dutch money
market. Initially, the assassination on 28 June in Sarajevo of the Austrian heirapparent, Archduke Franz-Ferdinand, was just one more crisis in tumultuous times.
However, when Austria issued an ultimatum to Serbia on 24 July, it became clear
that war was imminent. The financial markets reacted with plummeting stock prices
and an unprecedented credit crunch as banks, in order to remain liquid, called in
their short-term loans. For the same reason they were no longer able to provide
new loans. Foreign exchange markets were fluctuating wildly, as demand for the
British Pound – the standard currency for international trade – was such that it rose
past its upper gold point, a feat technically impossible in a fully functioning system
based on the gold standard. Within a few days the crisis became so severe, that all
financial centres of any importance were temporarily shut down. As a prominent
London banker said: ‘the world seems to be returning to a basis of cash and
barter’.25 In Amsterdam, the crash was linked to the preference for
prolongatiekrediet. To most Dutch companies, who invested extensively in stocks,
these renewable credits – backed by stocks as collateral – were very attractive.
However, due to the threats of war, people wanted to be liquid. Lenders gave notice
on their outstanding loans, and stocks were sold on a large scale. As stock prices
plummeted in value, the value of the collateral on existing renewable credits did so
as well.26 Soon, companies were unable to supplement the collateral on their
outstanding credits. The Dutch system of credit ground to a halt. On July, 29th, the
board of the Vereeniging voor den Effectenhandel – the private association
regulating the Amsterdam Stock Exchange – decided to close the exchange for a
single day, so that measures might be taken to ensure the further functioning of the
exchange. However, this failed and the exchange remained closed, thereby
extending all existing short-term renewable credit for an unknown period.
25
Quoted in: Richard Roberts, ‘The London Financial Crisis of 1914.’ In: Patrice Baubeau, Anders Ögren, eds.,
Convergence and Divergence of National Financial Systems: Evidence from the Gold Standards, 1871-1971
(London 2010) 161-178, here 163. Roberts provides a concise, yet comprehensive overview of the role of London
in international finance on the eve of the war, the ensuing crisis, as well as an analysis of the effectiveness of
governmental intervention during this crisis.
26
Jongman, Geldmarkt, 158.
79
Jeroen Euwe 3
The closing of the stock exchange threatened to have disastrous
consequences for Dutch businesses, as these had used these short-term loans to
manage funds that were temporarily surplus to requirements. With their money tied
up in loans that were frozen for an indeterminate period, these companies were
facing liquidity problems because the closing of the exchange also meant that new
credits could not be obtained. A syndicate of bankers, backed by the Nederlandsche
Bank, used the Vereeniging voor den Geldhandel – Banking association – to grant
credits to those businesses that were facing financial difficulties as a result of the
credit crisis. The plan could necessitate a growth of the money supply of ƒ 200
million, while the situation was further complicated by a short-lived run on savings
accounts that started on 28 July.27 The amount of money in circulation therefore
needed to be significantly enlarged. As the Nederlandsche Bank was bound by its
legal obligation to keep gold coverage of paper money in circulation at 40 per cent, it
could only increase circulation by ƒ 100 million. Consequently, it was necessary to
suspend the gold standard. The minimum coverage of the banknotes in gold was
decreased to 20 per cent, allowing the Nederlandsche Bank to increase the amount
in circulation, effectively restoring stability of the Dutch financial institutions.
Nonetheless, the exchange would not reopen until 9 February 1915, over a month
after the London exchange did.28
Upon its reopening almost all of the formerly blocked renewable credits
were repaid before the year was out, as many people made a profit on the sale of
their American stocks on the New York stock exchange and the amount of money
available on the market increased rapidly.29 This significant expansion of the money
market was partly a result of the fact that the war severely impeded international
trade. This resulted in the gradual selling out of stores by Dutch companies both at
home and abroad, and a growing stream of the proceeds to the Dutch banks. Other
sectors of the economy, such as the transport sector, also contributed to the
liquidity of the financial markets. The fact that trade became ever more difficult was
27
Nationaal Archief, The Hague, Nederlandsche Spaarbankbond, 1906-2000, nummer toegang 2.18.29,
nd
inventarisnummer 15, Minutes of the general meeting July 2 , 1920. Point 3, Annual report by the secretary;
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 21; Jongman, Geldmarkt, 159-160.
28
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 22; Jongman, Geldmarkt, 158-160.
29
De Roos and Wieringa, Rente, 86.
80
Jeroen Euwe 3
related to the increased risks involved with shipping. This translated into higher
shipping freights with record profits for Dutch shipping companies as a
consequence. For instance, at the end of 1916, the Koninklijke Nederlandsche
Stoomboot Maatschappij – Royal Dutch Streamer CXompany (KNSM) – had ƒ 40
million in liquid assets, to a capital of ƒ 15 million. The shipping company of Nievelt &
Goudriaan, which in tonnage was comparable, reported monthly profits to the tune
of ƒ 1 million.30
Another important factor was the influx of a growing amount of foreign
capital – mostly from the central powers – in the form of stocks and floating assets.
These floating assets consisted of the proceeds of German exports, often destined
for the Dutch colonies, as well as Mark balances and banknotes.31 The majority of
German companies were doing well due to large orders for the war effort. Existing
debts were paid off, and many companies came to hold significant bank deposits.32
The inflow of flight capital started early in the war as the exchange rate of the Mark
to the guilder had started to drop at the beginning of the hostilities, and by January
1916 was described by the British Times as ‘almost hopelessly low’.33 Surprisingly, it
would take until August 1916 before the German authorities took measures to stem
this outward flow of capital.34 Still, in 1923 professor G.W.J. Bruins, not just a
prominent economist, but also a close friend of the President of the Nederlandsche
Bank, G. Vissering, and therefore in an excellent position to adequately judge the
development, estimated the total amount of flight capital that had flowed from
Germany to the Netherlands during the war and the subsequent period of inflation
at between ƒ 500 and ƒ 800 million – 10 to 15 per cent of the 1923 Dutch GDP.35
30
BArch R3101/660 fol.104-105 Gneist, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandschaft Den Haag to Reichskanzler von
Bethmann Hollweg, 1 December 1916.
31
Archive DNB, 8/1501/1, Duitschland, conferenties met Duitsers, valorisatie, tarievenkwestie
markenportefeuille DNB van voor 1914: H. Fabri, Holland als doorvoerland en de huidige stand van het vraagstuk
der Duitsche spoorwegtarieven van en naar Holland. Attachment to a letter by Fabri to Vissering, 26 Jan. 1926;
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 23, 32; G. Vissering, Crediet-verleenen in Nederland (Den Haag
1917) 13; Tetrode, ‘Het Buitenlandsch Kapitaal in Nederland’, 86-88.
32
Gehr, Das Verhältnis zwischen Banken und Industrie in Deutschland, 83-84.
33
BArch R3101/660 fol.68 Kühlmann, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, Den Haag, to Reichskanzler von
Bethmann Hollweg, Berlin, 14 January 1916. In his report, Kühlmann relayed information from an article in the
London Times. The Times based its story on information received from British bankers and the president of the
Amsterdam chamber of commerce.
34
F. Benfey, Die neuere Entwicklung des deutschen Auslandsbankwesens 1914-1925 (unter Mitberücksichtigung
der ausländischen Bankstützpunkte in Deutschland) (Berlin 1925) 35.
35
J. Houwink ten Cate, De Mannen van de Daad’ en Duitsland, 1919-1939. Het Hollandse zakenleven en de
vooroorlogse politiek (The Hague 1995) 87; J. Houwink ten Cate, ‘Amsterdam als Finanzplatz Deutschlands.’ In: G.
81
Jeroen Euwe 3
According to the German ministry of foreign affairs this was just over half of the
total capital that had fled Germany during this dramaticperiod.36
The effects of the war on Dutch-German economic relations
The large, and ever increasing, amounts of money in search of investment found an
increasingly active financial market. Because of wartime circumstances, the Dutch
government was faced with substantial budget deficits that had to be financed. 37
Also increasingly active were Dutch banks and industry, which attracted money to
expand their business. One important capital increase was the placement of ƒ 10
million in new shares by the Vereenigde Jurgens’ Margarine Fabrieken – Jurgens’’
United Margarine Factories – one of the Dutch companies that in 1929 would merge
with the British Lever Brothers Ltd. into Unilever. Now, with a share capital of ƒ 64
million, according to a German report, Jurgens had become a force to be reckoned
with, even to German standards. The German consulate predicted that Jurgens,
which already had extensive business dealings with Germany before the war, would
become an extremely serious competitor.38 In the banking sector, share capitals
were raised to finance overseas expansion, for instance by the Hollandsche Bank
voor Zuid-Amerika – Holland Bank for South America –, as well as at home, and
already in 1916 the German Consulate General in Amsterdam feared that Dutch
companies were trying to win the German market share in both enemy and neutral
countries.39
In the Netherlands, the banking concentration led to the mergers of smaller
local or regional banks into new nationally oriented banks, or takeovers of smaller
banks by large banks such as the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging. With this
D. Feldman (ed.), Konsequenzen der Inflation (Berlin 1989) 149-179, here 156; CBS, Macro-economische
ontwikkelingen, 1921-1939 en 1969-1985. Een vergelijking op basis van herziene gegevens voor het interbellum
(The Hague 1987) 55; Own calculations.
36
Houwink ten Cate, Mannen van de Daad, 87.
37
Van der Bie, ‘Een groote doorlopende roes’, 123-133.
38
BArch R 3101/660 fol.104-105, Gneist, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, The Hague, to the Reichskanzler. 1
December 1916.
39
BArch R 3101/660 fol.103 Von Humboldt, Kaiserlich Deutsches Konsulat-General, Amsterdam, to the
Reichskanzler, Berlin, 29 November 1916. The Hollandsche Bank voor Zuid-Amerika was a daughter company of
the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, one of the largest banks in the Netherlands. BArch R 3101/660 fol.104-105,
Gneist, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, The Hague, to the Reichskanzler. 1 December 1916.
82
Jeroen Euwe 3
concentration movement, Dutch banks also expanded their business model.
Whereas earlier banks played a somewhat passive role, merely furnishing credit and
financing trade, from the 1890s on they occasionally moved into stock market
flotation’s and company finance. It was only with the beginning of the concentration
movement in banking around 1910, however, that they took the lead from their
German counterparts and actively engaged in company finance. During the war and
the short-lived post-war boom, banking concentration – and with it the attraction of
working capital and the expansion of company finance – would reach its peak.40 The
German consulate, which kept a close watch on every aspect of the Dutch economy,
remarked in a 1916 report to Berlin: ‘the newest concentration in Dutch banking will
therefore not be without influence on the industrial development of the
Netherlands.’41 The consulate’s reports often dealt with the post-war prospects of
Dutch-German economic relations. This was not limited to the analyses of increased
Dutch competitiveness. Because of the expansion of the Dutch financial markets,
any development threatening the present and future German use of these markets
received special attention. The importance of the Dutch financial markets was such,
that when in the summer of 1917 the Germans found out that major Dutch banks
had the intention to invest on a large scale in Russian stocks, industry, and start-up
companies as soon as the war was over, Reichskanzler Theobald von Bethmann
Hollweg ordered his State-Secretary of the Interior to take action. This StateSecretary, Arthur Zimmermann, was to influence Dutch public opinion against such
plans and in favour of Dutch capital participation in German companies. This, he was
to do by publishing an overview of the foreign capital that had in recent years been
lost by the failure of Russian companies.42
Of more immediate concern, but equally important in future, was the
attitude of the Dutch banks towards Germany. Both the Entente as well as the
40
Joost Jonker, ‘ Sinecures or sinews of power? Interlocking directorships and bank-industry relations in the
Netherlands, 1910-1940.’ Economic and Social History in the Netherlands, Volume III (Amsterdam 1991) 119-131,
here 122.
41
BArch R 3101/660 fol.82, Von Kühlmann, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft to Reichskanzler von Bethmann
Hollweg, The Hague, 22 June 1916.
42
BArch R 3101/660 fol.175, Reichskanzler Bethmann Hollweg to the State Secretary of the Interior, Berlin, 21
July 1917.
83
Jeroen Euwe 3
Central Powers placed government bonds in Amsterdam.43 In this regard it was
especially vexing to the German authorities, that the Amsterdamsche Bank – once
established to foster German-Dutch economic relations – seemed to have
succumbed to British pressure and behaved – in the words of the German
Consulate-General – ‘not overly friendly’. When the bank’s president, F.S. van
Nierop, was about to embark on a business trip to Frankfurt, Richard von Kühlmann,
the German envoy in The Hague, sent an urgent message to Reich Chancellor
Bethmann Hollweg: ‘It seems that the Amsterdam banking world has the perception
that the British are dangerous and vicious, and that the good-natured Germans will
accept anything. I believe that a somewhat strong conversation with Mr. van Nierop
about the views of these Amsterdam banking circles would have a most beneficial
effect.’44 This German perception, however, seems to have been unfounded. Not
only did the British consider most Dutch banks to be pro-German – only Hope & Co.
and the Nederlandsche Handelsmaatschappij were considered to be Ententefriendly – in practise, Dutch banks were essential in financing German wartime
trade.45
Financing trade
Flight capital contributed to a marked increase of the Dutch gold reserves, as did the
growing trade surplus. Although the Netherlands, being a neutral country, according
to international law was allowed to trade with any country, imports were at a
fraction of the pre-war level, and the usual trade deficit became a surplus. The gold
reserves of the Netherlands Bank, which stood at ƒ 161 million in July 1914, grew to ƒ
217 million in January 1915, stood at ƒ 429 million by the end of that year and
43
‘Die Stellung der ‚Amsterdamsche Bank’ zur deutschen Reichsanleihe.’ Deutsche Wochenzeitung für die
Niederlande, 21 November 1915; BA R3101/660 fol.63-64, Von Humboldt, Kaiserlich Deutsches Gesandtschaft,
Amsterdam, to Reichskanzler von Bethmann Hollweg, Berlin, 3 December 1915. Report on the placement of
French government bonds; DNB 2.2/1802/1 Confidential letter of the Vereeniging voor den Geldhandel to her
members, October 1926. Report on the placement of German short-term treasury bills.
44
BArch R 3101/660 fol.84, Urgent letter by Envoy Kühlmann, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, The Hague, to
Reichskanzler von Bethmann Hollweg. 6 July 1916.
45
BArch R 3101/660 fol.273-273, Report ‘Feindliche Bestrebungen auf Wirtschaftlichem Gebiet in Holland.’ Sent
by Deutsche Handelsstelle im Haag to Reichwirtschaftsamt, Berlin, 22 May 1918.
84
Jeroen Euwe 3
amounted to ƒ517 million – the equivalent to 15 per cent of GDP – in April 1916.46
According to the German legation, all of this gold came from Germany and Austria. 47
The influx of gold led to a discussion on whether such large gold reserves were
expedient, since the growing gold reserves might bring on inflation. Maybe the
Dutch should follow the Scandinavian example, and require payment in goods. The
Nederlandsche Bank insisted that such a requirement would limit trade, and instead
took on a central role in the granting of credit for foreign trade.48 It guaranteed the
loans, on condition that it was consulted beforehand, and the loans were in the
common, that is, in Dutch interest.49 As collateral, treasury issues and industrial
issues in guilders were to be deposited at the Dutch banks. The Nederlandsche Bank
closely monitored both the nature and adequacy of these issues.50
After the abandonment of the Gold Standard at the beginning of the war, the
London acceptance market – which had financed most international trade – broke
down. Now, the president of the Nederlandsche Bank, G. Vissering, recognized the
opportunity to expand the Dutch acceptance market.51 Here short-term credit –
usually for a period of three months – is supplied in the form of acceptances, which
can be divided in two main groups: financial bills and reimbursement credits. Both
kinds are less expensive than other forms of short-term credit. Reimbursement
credits are used to finance the import and export of goods, and are self-liquidating
as they use the goods they finance as a security. It was the use of such
reimbursement credits – in guilders – that Vissering promoted. Financial bills were
regarded as undesirable, since these did not serve Dutch trade and were considered
46
BArch R 3101/660 fol.68 Kühlmann, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, Den Haag, to Reichskanzler von
Bethmann Hollweg, Berlin, 14 January 1916; BArch R 3101/660 fol.73 Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, Den
Haag, to Auswärtiges Amt, 18 April 1916. Report on Dutch gold reserves; Van der Bie, ‘Een doorlopend grote
roes,’ 86; Own calculations.
47
BArch R 3101/660 fol.68 Kühlmann, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, Den Haag, to Reichskanzler von
Bethmann Hollweg, Berlin, 14 January 1916.
48
De Vries, Geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche Bank. V, 78-80; BArch R 3101/660 fol.73, Report on the Dutch
gold reserves by the German consulate, the Hague, 18 April 1916.
49
Vissering, Crediet-verleenen, 15-16.
50
Archive DNB, 2.121/153/1, Duits krediet, onderpand Duitsche industrie en schatkistwissels. Dossier No.44,
Valuta-regeling; Archive DNB, 2.121/154/1, Duits krediet door Lippmann Rosenthal & Co, Rotterdamsche
Bankvereeniging en Amsterdamsche Bank (onderpand Duitse effecten). Various letters between Dutch banks
and the Nederlandsche Bank regarding German loans, extensions on German loans, quality of collateral for these
loans.
51
Vissering, Crediet-verleenen, 12. For an overview of the crisis in British finance at the beginning of the war:
Richard Roberts, ‘The London Financial Crisis of 1914.’ In: Patrice Baubeau and Anders Ögren, eds., Convergence
and Divergence of National Financial Systems: evidence from the gold standards, 1871-1971 (London 2010) 161177.
85
Jeroen Euwe 3
less secure. To be able to consolidate its new international stature, for the
Amsterdam money market, the use of acceptances in guilders was important. The
stability shown by the guilder was a great help in this regard.
Source: Archive DNB, 2.1/332/1, Kredietverlening aan het buitenland; Own calculations.
The British Economist stated as early as December 1915 that ‘the position of the
London exchange market is encroached upon by Amsterdam, so that the Dutch
currency has for the time being become a standard of value for other currencies’. 52
In spite of progressively decreasing foreign trade, the acceptance market gradually
expanded. In 1913, the seven most important Dutch banks had a turnover of ƒ 62
million. In 1918 these banks reached their highest wartime turnover in acceptances
52
The Economist, December 18, 1915, ‘Supplement’, 9.
86
Jeroen Euwe 3
at just over ƒ 77 million.53 Given the decrease of foreign trade during the war, this
meant that the share of foreign trade that was financed in this way had increased
considerably. Nevertheless, given that the total amount of bank loans due at the end
of the war was ƒ 440 million (18 per cent of 1913 GDP), other forms of credit were
far more important. Most of these loans, ƒ 195 million and ƒ 142 million respectively,
were granted to Germany or Great Britain, which indicates the importance of Dutch
trade with these countries (Graph 3.1). Austria-Hungary was the third most
important debtor with ƒ 85 million, followed by France – ƒ 12 million.54 In other
words, two thirds of all loans went to the Central Powers. The Allies obtained most
of their credit in the United States.
After the war, it turned out that the loans granted to German customers
amounted to even more than the ƒ 195 million recorded by the Nederlandsche Bank.
A number of Dutch banks had not bothered to consult the central bank, and had
granted an additional ƒ 113 million to German customers, bringing the total of the
outstanding credit granted to Germany at ƒ 308 million.55 Whether the loans
extended to others were higher as well, is unknown. As of 3 February 1919, the total
outstanding bank loans to the former belligerents amounted to ƒ 499.3 million – 13
per cent of the Dutch 1918 GDP.56 Some of these loans had been granted after the
war. For instance as a part of the General Agreement with the Allied powers, a credit
of ƒ 123 million had been agreed upon, while ƒ 7.2 million had been loaned to
others.57
Because of the uncertainty regarding the conditions of the Treaty of
Versailles, which was under negotiation at the time, the German banks sought
extensions on their loans. In Switzerland this resulted in a general sauve qui peut in
banking circles, which is understandable given that payments to the Swedes had
53
Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, ‘Development of Dutch Banking Business.’ In: Monthly Review (October
1920) 25-29, there 29.
54
Archive DNB, 2.1/332/1, kredietverlening aan het buitenland; Smits et al, Dutch GNP and its Components; Own
calculations.
55
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/1, Regeringskredieten 1914-1918, verlenging kredieten na de oorlog, verlenging
Duitse kredieten. Visit by Urbig to the secretary of the Nederlandsche Bank, January 8th, 1919.
56
Van der Bie, ‘Een doorlopend grote roes’, 86; Archive DNB, 2.1/332/1, Note by Vissering to Ant. van Gijn dated
rd
February 3 , 1919; Own calculations.
57
rd
Archive DNB, 2.1/332/1, Note by Vissering to Ant. van Gijn dated February 3 , 1919.
87
Jeroen Euwe 3
stopped altogether.58 Dutch bankers, however, retained their composure. Although
they would have preferred to give notice on the existing credits, they decided not do
so because the banks did not want to endanger their good and long-standing
relations with the Germans.59 Besides, they could afford to remain calm, since many
loans had already been repaid as they came due during the war, and this had
continued after the armistice.60 This may have been because the Nederlandsche
Bank had consistently demanded a high quality of collateral – in guilders – for these
loans, whereas the Swedes had not demanded collateral on their loans. This policy
of the central bank on the other hand also explains the high amount of unreported
credit that some banks had granted to their German relations.
The Nederlandsche Bank continued to play the role of intermediary between
the Dutch creditors and their German debtors, and showed a highly cooperative
attitude towards the German debtors. Just days after the armistice, Vissering sent a
telegram to Franz Urbig, director of the Disconto-Gesellschaft and one of the most
influential German bankers, suggesting him to send a representative to the
Netherlands to discuss possible extensions on the German loans, some of which
were due two days later.61 Urbig came in person, and would remain in constant
communication with the Dutch creditors throughout 1919.62 Nevertheless, because
of the uncertain political and financial situation in Germany, and despite additional
collateral, Dutch banks were not eager to extend existing loans. A number of them
instead were asking the Nederlandsche Bank for permission to call in their loans,
something they did not formally have to do. It shows how the Nederlandsche Bank
wielded power in an informal way.63 In response the Nederlandsche Bank called a
meeting with the banks, were Vissering argued why they should agree to the
German requests for extensions. He was backed by the larger Dutch banks, one of
58
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/1, Visit by Wertheim and Hartogh to the secretary of the Nederlandsche Bank, 3
December 1918; Archive DNB, 2.132/151/2, Visit by Paul May to Vissering and Tetrode, 10 April 1919, 11.30 am.
59
Archief DNB, 2.132/151/1, Regeringskredieten 1914-1918, verlenging kredieten na de oorlog, verlenging
Duitse kredieten. Report of a meeting between J. Wertheim, Mr. Hartogh and the secretary of the Nederlandsche
Bank, 3 December 1918, 11.30.
60
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/1, Report of a meeting between J. Wertheim en Mr. Hartogh, both of the firm
Wertheim & Gompertz, and the president of the Nederlandsche Bank, 6 December 1918, 12.15.
61
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/1, Telegram by Vissering to the board of the Disconto Gesellschaft in Berlin, 13
November 1918, 24.00.
62
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/1, Minutes of various meetings of Urbig with officials of DNB and representatives of
Dutch banks.
63
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/1, Various reports of meetings with representatives of Dutch banks.
88
Jeroen Euwe 3
which posed that ‘it would be unwise if the Netherlands should be unwilling to
respond to the need for credit in its hinterland’.64 Refusing the extensions would not
be in the best interest of the banks, as the result would be that ‘the money would be
repaid, but the Netherlands would be out of it commercially’.65 The banks complied
and the existing loans were extended, and were paid in due time.66
While the Germans were seeking extensions on their loans, they were also
approaching the Dutch banks for new credits. As these were in most cases not linked
to the Dutch-German trade, the Nederlandsche Bank was not in favour of these.67
The policy of the Nederlandsche Bank during the war and immediately afterwards
can thus be characterized as being geared towards using the Dutch financial market
to ensure the continuation of Dutch trade. Due to circumstances, in practice this
meant predominantly the financing of trade with Germany. In the years to come, the
Dutch-German financial ties would grow stronger than they had ever been before, as
German companies, municipalities and state governments increasingly turned
toward the Amsterdam’s financial market, where a large number of German banks
established themselves.
64
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/2, Statement by Van Tienhoven of the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging during a
meeting of Dutch bankers and the board of the Nederlandsche Bank concerning the extension of German loans,
20 March 1919, 11.30 am.
65
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/2, Statement by Van Tienhoven of the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging during a
meeting of Dutch bankers and the board of the Nederlandsche Bank concerning the extension of German loans,
20 March 1919, 11.30 am.
66
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/1, Various reports of meetings with representatives of Dutch banks.
67
Archive DNB, 2.132/151/2, Report of a telephone conversation between director P. J. C. Tetrode and G. H.
Hintzen of the bank R. Mees & Zoonen, 15 May 1919, 9.45 am.
89
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.4
Foreign banks in the Netherlands
Germany needed to revive its international trade, and to do so it had to be able to
finance its imports and exports. Before the war, this had mainly been done through
London, were all the important German banks had established branches. These
however, had been seized and liquidated by the British government as enemy
property. As these German banks, the first few years after the war they, no longer
had access to the London money market either,68 these banks needed a neutral
country to conduct their international financial business.69 Apart from this, there
was another reason for German banks to open branches abroad. After Germany’s
defeat, the inflation that had started during the war continued at an ever increasing
pace. For German companies, especially those that relied upon imports and exports,
it became essential to either immediately convert payments for their products into
goods, for instance raw materials, or to exchange the Marks they got in foreign
currency.
For German banks, the Netherlands were a logical place to settle, not only
because of its geographical location, but also because of the stability of the guilder,
the low and stable interest rates, the low commission that was charged, and Dutch
banking secrecy. As Norway and Sweden did not allow foreign banks to be set up,
Switzerland was the only real competitor, but Berne discouraged the establishment
of foreign banks. Anyway, at that time Switzerland had not yet introduced banking
secrecy, and was also regarded as being too isolated and therefore, not really an
alternative.70 Already during the war, several German banks planned to establish
banks in the Netherlands.71 In July 1918, this resulted in the founding of the Bank
voor Handel en Scheepvaart – Bank for Trade and Transport – by Vulcaan Rotterdam,
68
J. T. Madden and M. Nadler, The International Money Markets (London 1935) 466.
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Bevorderen betalingsverkeer met het buitenland vestigingen van buitenlandse banken
in Amsterdam; discontofaciliteiten. Visit by Redelmeier to the board of the Nederlandsche Bank, 19 February
1926.
70
W.J. Schmitz, Der Amsterdamer Geldmarkt, 13; Hellauer, Internationale Finanzplätze, 103-104; J.L. de Jager,
‘De harde leerschool, 1914-1950.’ In: Joh. de Vries, W. Vroom and T. de Graaf (eds), Wereldwijd bankieren. ABN
Amro 1824-1999 (Amsterdam 1999) 241-298, here 275; Archive DNB, 7/0831/1, vestiging van buitenlandse
banken in Nederland. Statements by Mr. Dr. Van Tienhoven, director of the Rotterdamsche Bank, regarding
foreign plans to establish banks in the Netherlands, 1 and 2 March 1918.
71
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Report of a telephone conversation between the secretary of the Nederlandsche Bank
with Mr. Dr. J.P. van Tienhoven, director of the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, 8 October 1918; Archive DNB,
7/831/1, Vestiging van buitenlandse banken in Nederland. Statements by Mr. Dr. Van Tienhoven, director of the
Rotterdamsche Bank, regarding foreign plans to establish banks in the Netherlands, 1 March 1918 and 2 March
1918.
69
90
Jeroen Euwe 3
a subsidiary of the Thyssen concern that already before the war had invested to a
large extent in the Netherlands, and especially in the ports around Rotterdam.72
Thyssen had plans to expand its existing business interests in the Netherlands
further after the war. This included substantial investments in modern loading and
unloading facilities in his own port in Vlaardingen, as well as in its Rhine fleet and sea
shipping companies, and its trading company that was active in the markets for iron,
steel, ores, and coal. Naturally, the Thyssen concern wished to route these
investments through its own bank. At a later date, the bank might transform into a
general bank for trade and transport.73 In December of the same year it was
followed by the Internationale Wisselbank, whose German directors had been
bankers in Belgium and France prior to the war.
Newly established
Total
2
1926
1925
1924
1923
1922
1921
1920
1919
1918
Pre-1918
Unknown
Table 3.1: Foreign financial institutions in the Netherlands, 1918 - March 1926.
3
2
4
11
10
5
18
11
2
1
3
5
9
20
30
35
53
64
66
69
Source: Archive DNB; 7/831/1: Vestiging van buitenlandse banken in Nederland. Overview ‘Niet zuiver
Nederlandsche bankinstellingen, 26 Maart 1926.
By March 1926, the Nederlandsche Bank listed no less than 69 financial institutions it
regarded as foreign. The number of newly founded institutions was even larger
however, as some only had a short lifespan. The Rotterdam branch of the British
Standard Bank of South-Africa for instance – which had been the first to establish
itself in the Netherlands after the war –, was not mentioned in the list.74 Three of
these institutions already existed before the war, while the remainder had been
72
Archive DNB, 7/831/1, Vestiging van buitenlandse banken in Nederland. ‘Niet zuiver Nederlandsche
bankinstellingen, 26 March 1926, item no.12.
73
BArch R 901-1789 fol.15; BA R 3101/660 fol.324 Report on the activities in the Netherlands of the Thyssen
concern, by envoy Gneist, Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, to Reichskanzler Bethmann Hollweg. The Hague,
14 August 1918; BArch R 3101/660 fol. 326; Report on the activities of Thyssen by Dr. Heinburg, Kaiserlich
Deutsches Konsulat, Amsterdam, to Reichskanzler Graf von Hertling. 6 September 1918.
74
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, bevorderen betalingsverkeer met het buitenland, vestigingen van buitenlandse banken
in Amsterdam; discontofaciliteiten. Report on a visit by the directors of the Amsterdam branch of the Deutsche
Bank, 25 August 1921; Archive DNB, 7/831/1, Vestiging van buitenlandse banken in Nederland. Overview ‘Niet
zuiver Nederlandsche bankinstellingen, 26 March 1926.
91
Jeroen Euwe 3
formed between July 1918 and March 1926 (Table 3.1). The overwhelming majority
was of German or Austrian origin. Only six had their origins elsewhere: France,
Liechtenstein (i.e. Switzerland), Sweden, the United States and Poland.75 Because
most of these new banks were of German origin, they were in common parlance
referred to as the German banks.
Most of the new banks were subsidiary companies, and as such were legally
Dutch banks although their board of directors consisted mostly of Germans. Only the
Deutsche Bank chose to open a branch.76 The new banks were backed either by a
major German bank, such as the Dresdner Bank, Disconto-Gesellschaft, Delbrück,
Schickler & Co., or an industrialist such as Thyssen. They had German business
connections, German customers, and German capital.77 Many German industrial
conglomerates, for instance, decided to ferry the capital used for foreign
transactions to Amsterdam. This was not only done to safeguard this capital from
inflation, the favourable Dutch tax laws were also duly noted.78 At first, the new
banks limited their activities in the Netherlands to foreign exchange dealings and the
managing of German funds, by supplying short-term loans to German industrial
companies and acquiring Dutch stocks and treasury bills.79 Already in 1921 however,
their activities were widening – much to the dismay of Dutch bankers –, as they
started to attract Dutch deposits at a to Dutch banks astonishingly high interest of 6
to 7 per cent. By lending highly rated currency such as dollars, pounds sterling, and
guilders to Central European countries – mostly Germany – they were able to realize
up to 12 per cent interest on these deposits.80 Just prior to the adoption of the
Dawes-plan in August 1924, credits in current account even commanded 32 per cent
75
Archive DNB, 7/831/1, Vestiging van buitenlandse banken in Nederland. Overview ‘Niet zuiver Nederlandsche
bankinstellingen, 26 March 1926.
76
Archive DNB, 1.121/245/1, correspondentie met G. Vissering, allerhande onderwerpen: BIB, Reichsbank,
kredieten Oost-Europa. Letter by Bruins adressed to Vissering, December 24th, 1925.
77
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 24.
78
Schmitz, Der Amsterdamer Geldmarkt, 37.
79
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 24; ‘Effecten- en Geldmarkt. Wekelijks overzicht.’ Bijvoegsel
Algemeen Handelsblad (27 February 1926) 6.
80
Archive DNB, 8.2/2060/1, Duitsland, Duitse rijksbank. Report of a meeting of Ornstein with the president, the
secretary, and director De Beaufort of the Nederlandsche Bank, July 5th, 1921; Archive DNB, 2.111.3/121/1,
Schaarste aan zilverbons, grote aantallen bevinden zich in Duitsland. Letter by DNB to the minister of Finance, 27
August 1923; Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Meeting of Vissering, Van Vollenhoven, Defoer and the secretary of the
Nederlandsche Bank with Paul May (Lippmann, Rosenthal & Co.), J.P. van Tienhoven and D. Ornstein
(Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging), P. Hofstede de Groot (Amsterdamsche Bank), and J.M. Telders (Twentsche
Bank), 21 March 1923.
92
Jeroen Euwe 3
interest. Although the Dawes-plan led to a great surge in foreign credit, on the
German financial markets money remained tight. Interest on short-term credit
remained as high as 12 per cent.81
The foreign banks contributed to a broadening of the infrastructure of the
Amsterdam financial market, while the capital that fled depreciation and taxation in
Germany, Austria, and the Balkans added to a growing supply of funds in search of
short and long-term investment.82 The reasons why so many of these funds sought
refuge in the Netherlands both during and after the war, are more or less the same
as those of the German banks, although in this case the fact that the Dutch banks
guaranteed banking secrecy will have been especially important.83 As a
consequence, the Mark was stabilized in the autumn of 1923, the German flight
capital was only partially repatriated. There was still the high German taxation to be
avoided and residual fears of depreciation still existed. Moreover, any decrease was
more than offset by capital which by then had started to pour in from Belgium,
France, and Italy, as a result of monetary difficulties in those countries.84
Nevertheless, although the influx of money from abroad was important, the
funds generated by the Dutch economy should not be underestimated. Thanks to
the after the crisis of 1920 fast expanding economy – between 1922 and 1924 the
Dutch GDP showed an average growth of 5.2 per cent, between 1925 and 1929 of
4.4 per cent. Both the population as well as Dutch companies saved increasing
amounts of money. Consequently, each year considerable sums were in search of
investment.85 Savings were already substantial during the war. Companies had little
opportunity to invest their earnings in replenishing stocks, and they – as well as the
general public – had turned increasingly towards savings banks and the stock
81
Algemeen Handelsblad 28-09-1924, Ochtend, ‘Geld- en Effectenmarkt, Veertiendaagsch overzicht’.
Archive DNB, 2.3/2079/1, Invloed wegtrekken buitenlandsche saldi op positie Nederlandsche gulden. Report
with the same title, 5 December 1922.
83
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 24-25; Madden and Nadler, International Money Markets, 426.
In February 1923, the president of the Nederlandsche Bank had to appear in court to furnish information on a
client. He declined to give specific information, which was accepted by the court. Nationaal Archief, Den Haag,
Archief van De Nederlandsche Bank NV (1643) 1814 - 1980 (1995), nummer toegang 2.25.08, inventarisnummer
3319 DNB Commissie van Advies, 9 Feb. 1923.
84
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 24-25; Madden and Nadler, International Money Markets, 465466; Verrijn Stuart, Bankpolitiek, 83; Joh. de Vries, ‘Het economische leven 1918-1940.’ In: Algemene
Geschiedenis der Nederlanden (Haarlem 1988) deel 14, 102-146.
85
CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen, 28.
82
93
Jeroen Euwe 3
exchange.86 This would continue after the war, as the savings rate – for which data
are available from 1923 – rose from 4.4 per cent to 14.2 per cent of GDP in 1928.
After 1929 it would increasingly decline.87 Additionally, every year some ƒ 200
million – over 3 per cent of GDP – was paid out as dividend from the NetherlandsIndies, while many fortunes that had been amassed in the Indies were put to work
on the Dutch capital and money markets.88 Part of the reason for this high savings
rate was the taxation policy, which had no corporate tax: taxes were only payable on
dividends.89 Because many Dutch firms were family businesses, they refrained from
paying dividends as that would result in a high tax bill. Instead they chose to keep
the money within the company. Saving thus brought considerable fiscal benefits.
Based on statistics for income taxes and deposits, Hellauer calculated the average
annual growth of Dutch capital for 1926 and 1927 on ƒ 600 to 700 million a year,
what was circa 10 to 12 per cent of the GDP.90 It can therefore be concluded that,
although the role of flight capital was important, overall domestic sources
outweighed foreign sources of funds. These domestic sources were for the most part
structural in nature, as only the liquidity of the banks had grown considerably as a
consequence of the war. Given that, apart from the first three years after the war,
interest rates were stable and domestic emissions were not hampered by the
extensive foreign emissions.
The conclusion is that the international rise of the Dutch financial market was
a direct consequence of the fact that the position of London had been temporarily
weakened, and that it was further helped by the incidental inflow of capital due to
flight capital and the high degree of liquidity of the Dutch banks as a result of
86
D. C. Renooij, De Nederlandse emissiemarkt van 1904 tot 1939 (Amsterdam 1951), 61; Hartmann, Amsterdam
als financieel centrum, 23; NL-HaNA, Nederlandsche Spaarbankbond, 2.18.29, inv.nr. 15. Minutes of the general
meeting July 2nd, 1920, point 7: speech by J.H. Lugt on the influence of the war on savings.
87
J.G. Post, Besparingen in Nederland, 1923-1970: omvang en verdeling (Amsterdam 1972) 38. The savings rate
is given by Post as the relation between net national savings and net national income at market prices; J.C.
Wijnmaalen, ‘De besparingen van de Nederlandse Volkshuishouding voor en na de oorlog.’ In: Prae-adviezen van
de vereniging voor de staathuishoudkunde (The Hague 1953) 109-113; CBS, Het nationale inkomen van
Nederland 1921-1939 (Utrecht 1948) 46. Recalculated by the author using data for GDP from: CBS, Macroeconomische ontwikkelingen, 55.
88
Post, Besparingen in Nederland, 37; Own calculations; Metz, Die Niederlande als Käufer, 18-19. Metz states an
average inflow of dividends of ƒ 250 million, calculations based on revised data by the Dutch central bureau for
statistics (CBS) suggest ƒ 200 million. Percentage of GDP based on figures from CBS, Macro-economische
ontwikkelingen.
89
Post, Besparingen in Nederland, 43.
90
Hellauer, Internationale Finanzplätze, 86-88; CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen, 55; Own calculations.
94
Jeroen Euwe 3
developments during the war. The inflow of flight capital was by itself not the driving
force behind the development of Amsterdam. That Amsterdam was able to
consolidate its newfound position was primarily due to the considerable structural
inflow of capital from domestic sources.
95
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.5
The impact of German inflation and depreciation, 1918-1924
Since the beginning of the war, the nominal exchange rate of the Mark had dropped
inexorably (Graph 3.2). Because inflation was rising at a similar rate, however, the
real exchange rate – the purchasing power of the Mark in Germany relative to the
purchasing power of other currencies elsewhere – continued to hover around its
pre-war level. After the German defeat, the nominal exchange rate went into a free
fall, however.
Source: CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen, 1800-1999 (Voorburg 2001).
As the inflation did not proceed at the same rate as the fall of the exchange rate, the
real exchange rate also dropped. By March 1920, the real exchange rate had
declined to 16.5 per cent of its pre-war value (Graph 3.3).91 As inflation and
depreciation went on, the flight out of the Mark, which had started already during
the war, took on overwhelming proportions. Apart from German banks, this
motivated German trading companies and industry to found daughter companies in
the Netherlands. Until the signing of the Treaty of Versailles, they were doubly
91
Hein A.M. Klemann, German-Dutch monetary relations (unpublished manuscript).
96
Jeroen Euwe 3
motivated, as the blockade of Germany by the Entente reduced their export
potential. Even the exports to the neutral countries were affected, as the value of
their exports was not allowed to consist for more than 5 per cent of German labour
or German materials. Establishing a daughter, disguised as a fully Dutch-owned
company in the Netherlands seemed like a good way to circumvent the blockade.
The Entente, however, had their informers everywhere. Therefore, the German
consulate in the Netherlands viewed their chances of success as slim.
Sources: CBS, Jaarcijfers voor Nederlamd 1924/1925 (The Hague 1926); CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in
tijdreeksen, 1800-1999 (Voorburg 2001); A. Maddison Dynamic forces in Capitalist Development. A long-run
92
comparative view (1991 Oxford); Own calculations.
Nonetheless, by the end of 1920, Thyssen owned a large and growing number of
new companies in the Netherlands, among these a bank. Krupp had its own
transport company, a trading agency to purchase its ores, and a sales organization.
The Mannesmann-concern was about to establish a sales organization, and
considered erecting a factory. Stinnes had established the Firma Plettenburg, which
92
Data received from Hein Klemann.
97
Jeroen Euwe 3
handled sales as well as transport and which functioned as the hub for Stinnes’
Dutch interests.93
German foreign direct investments
German investments in the Netherlands, either by acquiring interests in existing
Dutch companies or by establishing new Dutch companies that were in fact whollyowned subsidiaries of German companies, were not a new feature in German-Dutch
economic relations. Furthermore, the new foreign investments were by no means
limited to German investments: British, French, Belgian, and even American
companies also settled here.94 Already during the nineteenth century, there were
many so-called bypass investments in the Netherlands, which entails that
investments were transferred back to the country of origin, i.e. Germany, through
the newly founded Dutch company. Tapping the substantial Dutch capital market
seems to have been an additional aim. Neither was the use of a Dutch subsidiary as
a way to do business abroad altogether new: Ben Gales relates in a paper on freestanding companies in the Netherlands – companies that were fully legal constructs
yet consisted of little more than some ledgers – how the German Kohlensäure
Werke C.G. Rommenhöller – registered in 1899 in both Germany and the
Netherlands, with 18 works in the former and one production unit in the latter
country – probably used yet another company under the same management, the
Carbonique Moderne, to attract Belgian and French investors.95 In other cases, such
investments were the result of vertical concentration – a process where a firm
extends its activities from its core business, for instance steel production, to include
in-house acquisition, shipping and transhipment of raw materials and finished
products. Such was the case with Thyssen, the German concern active in iron, steel,
93
BArch R 3101/2737 fol.30-33 Generalkonsulat, Amsterdam to Auswärtige Amt, Abteilung X, Berlin. 29-10-1920.
Deutsch-niederländische Kapitalsbeteiligungen in den Großindustrie; BArch R 3101/2738 fol.286 Deutsches
Konsulat, Rotterdam, to the Auswärtige Amt, Berlin, 5-1-1921; BArch R 3101/20210 Deutsches Generalkonsulat,
Amsterdam, to the Auswärtige Amt, Berlin, 22-12-1921.
94
Keetie Sluyterman, Ben Wubs, Over Grenzen. Multinationals en de Nederlandse markteconomie (Amsterdam
2009) 64; BA R901/1789 fol.16 Kaiserlich Deutsches Konsulat, Rotterdam, to Reichskanzler Dr. Graf von Hertling.
6-9-1918.
95
B. Gales, In Foreign Parts: Free-Standing Companies in the Netherlands around the First World War, Research
Memorandum 577 (GD-16) (Groningen 1994) 8.
98
Jeroen Euwe 3
ores and coal, who not only set up a trading company in the Netherlands, but also
established its own port facilities in Vlaardingen – part of the Rotterdam cluster of
ports – as well as its own sea shipping and Rhine shipping companies.96
What set the successive post-war waves of German investments in the
Netherlands apart from their pre-war counterparts, was on the one hand the
underlying rationale, and on the other hand the sheer magnitude of these new
investments. The need for a neutral financial centre from which to conduct business
was exacerbated by the increased German dependence on the imports of raw
materials. That they should choose the Netherlands was not only due to the fact
that from the 1860s, Dutch-German ties had become increasingly strong. The
location of the Netherlands – i.e. the fact that with its ports and extensive
infrastructure for traffic it functioned as the most important port to Western
Germany – which had been at the root of these ties, was certainly a factor, but so,
on the other hand, was the fact that the guilder remained a beacon of stability in a
time of extreme monetary instability all over Europe (graph 3.2), as well as the
favourable Dutch tax regime.
Another factor of importance in German FDIs in the Netherlands was that
during the last year of the war, the Dutch government as well as Dutch private
companies had initiated plans for extensive public works and well as other
investment and building programmes. These plans included a dam and land
reclamation in the Zuiderzee, an important new lock in the North Sea Canal, harbour
works and the construction of new ports in Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and Vlissingen,
as well as a canal in Twente, a canal between Antwerp and Dordrecht, canalization
of the Maas, to name but a few, as well as the construction of steelworks at
IJmuiden. As these works – which in the end were not all undertaken – would take
decades to finish, and were of such magnitude that they far surpassed the capacity
of Dutch industry, the German consulate saw an opportunity for German companies
to partake in the works. Given the low prices of German machinery, construction
steel, cement, hewn stones and other building materials, exports were sure to
increase. What the consulate emphasized, was that ‘in the long run, only companies
96
J. Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams für die rheinische Wirtschaft, insbesondere für die deutsche
Rheinschiffahrt (Köln 1940) 52.
99
Jeroen Euwe 3
resident in the Netherlands will be successful in this kind of business, and in view of
the great prospects for our sales in this direction it is therefore desirable that some
powerful German entrepreneurs establish subsidiaries in the Netherlands’.97 Having
an actual presence in the Netherlands was considered necessary because the time
between the opening and closing for bids was too short for companies without a
local presence to be able to put in a bid, all the more so, because the contracts were
usually too imprecise to allow a fully-informed – and therefore competitive – bid.
Drawings, working conditions, et cetera all had to be viewed on-site. Another
important factor was that, although German companies were allowed to bid if two
solvent Dutchmen would stand as guarantor, the consulate did not believe that any
contracts would be awarded to them. Therefore, establishing a branch would not
do. Rather, they consequently strongly urged that powerful companies should
establish Dutch companies for this purpose.98
Bold Dutch entrepreneurs were only too willing to help the Germans to do
business abroad. One such entrepreneur was Joh. Linthout, director of the
Hollandsche Crediet- en Effectenbank. Linthout had founded his bank in December
1917 with the express purpose of serving German interests in the Netherlands.99
Since then, it had mostly traded German securities.100 Linthout recognized that
German companies would be forced to conduct their international business through
a neutral country, and – relentlessly – offered his services. In a large number of
letters, he alerted the German Reichswirtschaftsamt – Reich State Secretary of
Economics – to opportunities, for as well as threats to German businesses, offering
his services especially in the cloaking of German investments in the Netherlands and
97
BArch R 901/77062 von Humboldt, Generalkonsulat Amsterdam, 10-10-1919, to the Außenhandelsstelle in
Berlin.
98
Idem; BArch R 901/77062 Deutsches General-Konsulat Amsterdam to the Außenhandelsstelle Berlin, 2-9-1919.
Prior to the war, German building companies had also been active in the Netherlands and its colonies. In 1911,
the Hollandsche Aanneming Maatschappij was the contractor for harbour works in Surabaya in the Dutch East
Indies. The work was carried out by the Dusseldorf firm of Goedhart, and was financed through the Deutsche
Bank. Whether the Hollandsche Aanneming Maatschappij was a Dutch or cloaked German company, is unknown.
See: BArch R 901/1791 fol.10, Letter by Ferd. Engers, Amsterdam, to the Handelspolitische Abteilung of the
Auswärtigen Amt, Berlin. 2-11-1911.
99
BArcg R 3101/180 fol.107; R901/1789 fol.157 Deutsches Generalkonsulat, Amsterdam, to A.A. Berlin, 15
August 1919.
100
BArch R 3101/180 fol.221.
100
Jeroen Euwe 3
the Netherlands East Indies by establishing Dutch companies.101 The pressing
German need for such services is clear from the fact that, despite the fact that an
official of the German consulate in Amsterdam had warned that the Hollandsche
Crediet- en Effectenbank was a very small-scale operation, with hardly any ties to
leading Dutch circles, the Reichwirtschaftsamt took his offers seriously. Because he
was extremely active, in their view, he would be able to provide good services to
German trade.102 The Reichsministerium der auswärtigen Angelegenheiten – the
German foreign ministry – even briefly considered to accept Linthout’s offer to be
part of the German delegation at the peace talks.103 But the depreciation of the
mark also made another kind of entrepreneur appear. Obscure, underfunded, new
banks led by businessmen in poor standing, and often existing for only a short period
of time, sought to make their fortune. They lent money at interest rates that even in
Germany or Austria were considered to be nothing short of usury, while offering
their services in capital flight and the placement of bonds on the Dutch capital
market. These banks did not comply with Dutch laws either, as they assisted Dutch
buyers who were eager to circumvent the Dutch taxes on bonds – a ƒ 6 flat fee per
bond – by routing these through Germany. Although the consulate kept a list of such
unreliable firms, and in Germany itself the chambers of commerce and newspapers
regularly warned against such companies, they still managed to attract considerable
business.104
101
BArch R 3101/180 fol.198 Mrt 1919; R 3101/180 fol.102 26 Mrt 1919 HCE aan Reichswirtschaftsamt; R
3101/180 fol.110 3 April 1919 Reichswirtschaftsministerium to the Aktiengesellschaft für Inland- und
Auslandunternehmungen, Hamburg.
102
BArch R 3101/180 fol.221 Deutsche Gesandtschaft, Handels Abteilung, The Hague, to the Auswärtige Amt,
Berlin. 7-1-1919; R 3101/180 fol.86 Reichswirtschaftsministerium to the Reichsministerium der auswärtigen
Angelegenheiten, Berlin, 19-3-1919.
103
BArch R 3101/180 fol.86 Reichswirtschaftsministerium to the Reichsministerium der auswärtigen
Angelegenheiten, Berlin, 19-3-1919. The Reichswirtschaftsministerium declined the offer on the grounds that it
was impossible for a foreigner to be part of the German delegation, yet urged the Reichministerium der
auswärtigen Angelegenheiten to tell Linthout that his input was most welcome.
104
BArch R 3101/20210 fol.14-15 Confidential report by Hatzfeldt of the Generalkonsulat, Amsterdam, to the
Auswärtige Amt, Berlin. 22 December 1921; BArch R 3101/20210 fol.75-78, Confidential report by Hahn of the
Deutsche Generalkonsulat on the background of a number of German emissions in Amsterdam, to the
Auswärtige Amt, Berlin. 6 July 1922; BArch R 3101/2745 fol.357, Report by Hatzfeldt of the Generalkonsulat,
Amsterdam, on the activities of the firm ‘Bank- en Handelsvereeniging v/h A.J. Fortuin & Co.’, and A.J. Rotman,
for the Auswärtige Amt, Berlin. 9 November 1925; BArch R 3101/2745 fol.359 Highly confidential order to put
Schwab’s bank on the list of untrustworthy firms.
101
Jeroen Euwe 3
The Coal and Credit Treaty of 1920
That such companies could be successful was because German businesses were in
desperate need of both short and long term loans in foreign currency, in order to
buy raw materials. Without raw materials, there was no production, hence no
exports or employment. Germany was not only in danger of a complete economic
collapse, its economic troubles also made it a fertile environment for communist
agitators. Through Germany, such agitators were coming to the Netherlands to
preach the coming of the communist utopia. As only a few years before, Russia had
fallen victim to a communist Revolution that had cost Dutch investors over a billion
guilders in outstanding debts and investments, this threat was taken seriously.
Dutch investments in Germany were considerably higher, although as depreciation
and inflation did their work, whether these would ever be recovered was another
matter. Anyway, business, financial circles, and politicians needed a politically stable
and economically strong Germany.
As the president of the Nederlandsche Bank, G. Vissering approached the
problem as an economist, and to him, the first order of business was the
stabilization of the European currencies, foremost those of Germany and Austria.
Once this had been accomplished, the financially strong countries should provide
credits to aid the German recovery. Ideally, this should be accompanied by a
cancellation of part of the interallied debts. All of this was to be done in close
international cooperation. Vissering’s ideas were shared by many important bankers
such as Paul Warburg and economists, like John Maynard Keynes. Keynes had just
published his treatise ‘The Economic Consequences of the Peace’, in which he
argued against the too high reparations to be paid by Germany, since these would
impede the economic recovery of Europe as a whole.105 Vissering wrote a warm
introduction to the Dutch translation of this book.106 On two occasions, in October
and in November of 1920, bankers and economists from England, France,
Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark and Norway met the directors of the Nederlandsche
Bank as well as CE. ter Meulen of Hope & Co. – who was himself championing
105
John M. Keynes, The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York 1920).
G. Vissering, ‘Ter Inleiding van de Nederlandse uitgave.’ In: J.M. Keynes, De economische gevolgen van den
nd
vrede (Amsterdam 2 ed. 1922) VII-VIII.
106
102
Jeroen Euwe 3
another plan for the resuscitation of international trade – in Vissering’s home in
Amsterdam. These meetings resulted into the ‘Amsterdam Memorandum’, written
by Keynes and the German banker and member of the Central Committee of the
Reichsbank M.M. Warburg. This memo was subsequently watered down as Keynes’
ideas were considered infeasible, but after that this document was signed by all
participants in the meetings, as well as by influential Dutch businessmen, like Ernst
Heldring. The new League of Nations, which had been established nine months
earlier as part of the Treaty of Versailles, called a conference to discuss solutions to
the monetary problems. However, all of these efforts came to nought as especially
France and the United States were unwilling to discuss either the reparations or
inter-allied debts.107
As Vissering and his friends sought solutions through international
cooperation, Dutch businessmen looked for a unilateral solution to the immediate
problems at hand. The Dutch economy was not only hampered by the loss of the
German export market, it also faced an acute and desperate need for coal. All
European countries were struggling with shortages of coal, and it seemed at the
time, that this would remain a problem in the foreseeable future.108 Prior to the war,
the Netherlands had used some seven million tonnes of coal each year, mostly from
Germany. In 1919, only one million ton had been delivered. Should any less have
been delivered, Dutch industry and shipping would have been forced to stop their
activities.109 At that moment, the Dutch government was approached by the German
government with the request for a substantial credit. With the existing treaty, that
guaranteed the imports of German coal set to expire in December 1919, the Dutch
were highly motivated to come to an agreement. Furthermore, the agricultural
exports to Germany – its main export market – had declined to a bare minimum.
107
Ernst Heldring, Herinneringen en dagboek van Ernst Heldring (1871-1954) Uitgegeven door Dr. Joh. De Vries.
Eerste deel (Groningen 1970) 344-345; J.Th.M. Houwink ten Cate (ed.), Bruins’ Berlijnse besprekingen Een selectie
uit het archief van prof. mr. dr. G.W.J. Bruins, in het bijzonder de jaren 1924-1930 (The Hague 1989) 8-14;
Houwink ten Cate, De mannen van de daad; See also: F.A.G. Keesing, De conjuncturele ontwikkeling van
Nederland en de evolutie van de economische overheidspolitiek 1918-1938 (Utrecht 1947).
108
‘Handelskroniek’, De Economist, Vol.68, No.1 (December 1919) 631-634.
109
NL-HaNA, Cie. Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag, 2.08.26, inv.nr.1, Verslag Vergadering 23 Dec 1919 tussen de
Duitsche regeringscommissie voor de leeningsonderhandelingen in Den Haag en de Nederlandsche
regeeringscommissie. Statement by mr. Fentener van Vlissingen of the SHV. His company was the Dutch
distributor for the Rhenish-Westphalian Coal Syndicate.
103
Jeroen Euwe 3
This was even more of a problem, as the Dutch wartime stocks of foodstuffs were no
longer needed and threatened to spoil in Dutch warehouses.
As desperate as the Germans were for foreign credits, they were by no
means dependent upon the pure good will of the Dutch. In the negotiations for the
treaty, they were able to get the Dutch to agree to pay a high price for German coal
by pointing to the fact that even in Germany, there was a shortage of coal, and that
to German industry, coal was even more important than credits.110 The Dutch
negotiators seemed rather ill-prepared for the negotiations. Not only were they
unable to counter the German arguments effectively, just days prior to the signing of
the treaty, it turned out that they had forgotten to include the condition that the
raw materials that were to be purchased should be shipped over Dutch ports.111 The
Germans immediately countered by reminding the Dutch of the ethical grounds they
had always said were the foundation of the treaty: the rebuilding of the German
economy. In the end, the German negotiators complied with a rather vague clause,
stating that Dutch ports would be used, unless this was directly to the detriment of
German ports. On 11 May 1920, the Dutch and Germans signed a treaty in which the
Dutch government granted the German government a credit of ƒ 200 million at 6 per
cent interest.112 This credit consisted of two parts. The first part was a ƒ 60 million
credit for the import of Dutch foodstuffs, to be paid off by deliveries of coal. The
second credit, available until 1929, was a revolving credit of ƒ 140 million, for the
purchase of raw materials on the world market. A German Treuhandverwaltung für
das deutsch-niederländische Finanzabkommen (Tredefina) – Trust Organisation for
the German-Dutch Finance Agreement – supervised by a Dutch official
commissioner, would use these ƒ 140 million to grant credits to German exportoriented industries to finance their raw materials. Once the products produced with
these raw materials had been sold abroad, these firms would repay these loans in
foreign currency. All credits had to be repaid within a year. As this was a revolving
110
NL-HaNA, Cie. Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag, 2.08.26, inv.nr.1, Various reports on the negotiations for the
Coal and Credit Treaty.
111
NL-HaNA, Cie. Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag, 2.08.26, inv.nr.1, Vergadering 6 Mei 1920 tussen Duitsche
Regeeringscommissie en Nederlandsche regeeringscommissie.
112
For an extensive overview of the realization of the Coal and Credit Treaty: Ries Roowaan, Im Schatten der
Großen Politik. Deutsch-Niederländische Beziehungen zur Zeit der Weimarer Republik, 1918-1933 (Münster 2006)
82-94.
104
Jeroen Euwe 3
credit, once the loans were repaid, the money became available for new credits
again.
Not everyone in Dutch business, banking, or politics, was in favour of the
new credit. This was not because they were opposed to lending to Germany – quite
to the contrary – the need for a German economic recovery and thus the granting of
credit was universally recognized. The objections of Vissering were obvious: the
treaty threatened to interfere with his plan for coordinated international credits on
a much larger scale.113 Furthermore, as president of the Nederlandsche Bank, he was
concerned that the credit would stress government finances and thus the stability of
the guilder.114 That the credit was supported by a German collateral in the form of ƒ
200 million worth of German treasury bonds, was thus beside the point. Other
objections were heard in Dutch industrial circles, where many feared that the credit
would basically aid the German industry in its competition with Dutch companies,
which already had a hard time in competition due to the German depreciations. Yet
even an opponent, such as Ernst Heldring, was swayed by the importance of
promoting the granting of international loans to Germany, as well as the necessity of
securing coal deliveries.115
The government, most public servants involved in the realization of the
treaty, and representatives of trade and industry involved, were of the opinion that
securing the Dutch coal supply for the next four years was worth the high price.116
Furthermore, time and again the importance of the German hinterland was
stretched. Within a few years, criticism grew as already by December that year – far
sooner than expected – the coal shortage was solved and the price of German coal
deliveries under the treaty became relatively more expensive.117 As at the same
time, the competition with the German industry on the Dutch home market
intensified because of the continued depreciation of the Mark, more and more
113
Heldring, Herinneringen en dagboek, deel 1, 345.
NL-HaNA, Cie. Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag, 2.08.26, inv.nr.1, Vergadering 3 Februari 1920, 10.30 op het
departement van Buitenlandsche Zaken, over ontwerp verdrag met Duitschland inzake kolen en crediet.
115
NL-HaNA, Cie. Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag, 2.08.26, inv.nr.1, Vergadering Dinsdag 15 Juni 1920 op het
departement van Buitenlandsche Zaken, betreffende Crediet- en kolenovereenkomst met Duitschland.
116
Idem.
117
Archief DNB 7/265/1 Duitsland, Tredefina I, Algemeen. Vergadering Commissie van Advies, 20-12-1920.
114
105
Jeroen Euwe 3
people started to doubt the wisdom of financing one’s competitor.118 Given the
continued worsening of the German economic situation, and despite the Dutch
sacrifice, it is hardly surprising that the Dutch perception changed.
For their part, the Germans extensively voiced their appreciation of the
Dutch credit, in both newspaper interviews and private correspondence. In
November 1922, Reichskanzler Joseph Wirth wrote Central Bank President Vissering
to express his gratitude, once more stressing the importance of the credit to the
German economy and emphasizing that it fully met its intended goal.119 The
Reichsverband der deutschen Industrie – the German Association of Industry – wrote
a letter stating the same, and added that the close ties of the Netherlands to all
branches of the German economy meant that the credits to German industry would
ultimately help the Dutch as well.120 Regardless whether the treaty had been a
success, during the years to come, it would play a vital role in Dutch-German trade
negotiations.
The second wave of German investments
After its low point in March 1920, the real exchange rate of the Mark showed a
strong resurgence, rising to 48 per cent of its pre-war value within a year.121 The
recovery of the German currency lasted until the summer of 1921, after which
inflation would steadily worsen again. By the summer of the next year, inflation had
turned into hyperinflation, a situation that would continue until the stabilization in
November 1923. Under these conditions, it was impossible for companies to buy
raw materials, manufacture and sell a product, and win back their costs, let alone
make a profit. Considering these developments – illustrated in graphs 3.2 and 3.3 – it
is not surprising that by the spring of 1922, the steady growth of German companies
in the Netherlands gave way to a second wave of start-up companies. The German
118
Idem. See also the lobby by the Dutch oil-industry, in NL-HaNA, Cie. Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag, 2.08.26,
inv.nr.22, various documents.
119
Archief DNB 1.121/245/1, DNB, correspondentie met G. Vissering, allerhande onderwerpen: BIB, Reichsbank,
kredieten Oost-Europa. Letter by the Reichskanzler to Vissering, dated 1 November 1922.
120
Archief DNB 1.121/245/1, DNB, correspondentie met G. Vissering, allerhande onderwerpen: letter by the
chairman of the Reichsverband der deutschen Industrie to Vissering, dated 1 November 1922.
121
Klemann, ‘German-Dutch monetary relations.’
106
Jeroen Euwe 3
banks that had been established during the first wave, now facilitated the creation
of many of these new companies, although Dutch middlemen, such as Amsterdam
the lawyers and financiers G. Hymans and A.E. von Saher, also were active in this
field.122 Whoever facilitated the process, the procedure was usually the same:
between the client and the newly formed company, a standalone company was
placed, so that any link between the actual founder and the new company was
obscured.123
Dutch reactions to the German crisis
By 1920, Dutch industry was hard hit by the inflation in Germany. The German
industry was able to produce at far lower cost than the Dutch, due to the slow catchup between the nominal exchange rates and the internal German price level, which
was partly a result of the large-scale speculation in Marks by especially the Dutch
and the Americans.124 Naturally, the Dutch industry reacted with a call for protection
against what they called the dumping of German goods on the Dutch market, but
initially they failed to mobilize public opinion on the matter. In fact, newspapers
pointed out that there was little the Germans could do, as whatever they did,
someone would complain. Germany had to choose between two evils, they
explained to the public. When exporting at inland prices, they were dumping
according to Dutch criticisers, when exporting their goods at world market prices
they were accused of profiting off of the inflation.125 In Germany, there had been
growing resistance against what was called the Verschleuderung deutscher Ware –
the selling-off at bargain prices of German goods to greedy foreigners. Many
Dutchmen, for instance, took advantage of the unprecedented purchasing power of
the guilder to buy cheap books, pianos, works of art, cars et cetera in Germany.126
122
BArch R 3101/20210 fol.45-47 Deutsches General-Konsulat für die Niederlande, Amsterdam, to the
Auswärtige Amt, Berlin. 23-3-1922.
123
BArch R 3101/20210 fol.45-47 Deutsches General-Konsulat für die Niederlande, Amsterdam, to the
Auswärtige Amt, Berlin. 23-3-1922. Fol. 47 provides an interesting diagram, detailing the links between banks,
administration offices, and newly founded companies.
124
Scott Mixon, The Foreign Exchange Option Market, 1917-1921 (Unpublished manuscript, April 2011)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1333442 (11 October 2012).
125
‘’t Is ook nooit goed.’ Het Centrum 03-01-1920 Dag; ‘Schetsen van de Geld- en Fondsenmarkt.’ 26 November –
3 December.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 05-12-1920, Ochtend.
126
‘De internationale economische toestand.’ Het Centrum, 03-01-1920 Dag; ‘Het koopen door Nederlanders in
Duitsche grensplaatsen.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 21-02-1920.
107
Jeroen Euwe 3
The more enterprising amongst them made regular business trips to acquire
anything that might be profitable on the Dutch market. Newspapers mention people
from all walks of life – from paperboys to flower bulb traders and book and art
dealers – trading wholesale in anything from bathtubs and dining room interiors to
traction engines.127
Already in 1919, the German government had reacted by reinstating the
wartime trade controls, regulating imports and exports. From then on, export was
only possible with special permission and at certain prices – which were still highly
competitive on foreign markets. This then resulted in complaints from abroad that
the prices that had to be paid for German goods were higher than they were in
Germany itself. Of course this also led, in turn, to smuggling. The reinstatement of
import controls meant that now the only goods eligible for importation were the
basic necessities for the livelihood of the population, and those products that were
needed by German industry or agriculture and could not be substituted by Germanmade products. Naturally, Dutch agricultural exports were for the most part exempt,
while the products of Dutch export-oriented industry mostly were not. However,
this was somewhat of a moot point: exports were lessening as the declining
exchange rate of the Mark made Dutch products relatively expensive. Dutch industry
had to find other ways to retain the important German market. This is where Dutch
industry was in a better position than agriculture. Flushed with funds and profiting
from the high purchasing power of the Dutch guilder in Germany (Graph 3.4), Dutch
industry either bought existing factories or erected new ones in the neighbouring
country, deftly combining the evasion of import restrictions and the benefits of
cheaper production.
This route was most successfully taken by Dutch margarine producers,
primarily the firms of Van den Bergh and of Jurgens, who in 1929 would merge with
the British firm of Lever brothers into Unilever. By the end of 1921 these Dutch firms
were reputed to produce over 80 per cent of the total German margarine. They even
exported German margarine to the Netherlands. The same happened with chocolate
and cocoa factories, and in the cigar industry. According to a report by a Dutch
127
‘Onze handel met Duitschland.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 11-01-1920 Ochtend. Traction engines – in Dutch:
locomobielen – are steam-powered mobile generators that were mostly used in agriculture.
108
Jeroen Euwe 3
expert in the German archives the Dutch investments in Germany, as well as the
move into the processing trade, were direct reactions of the Dutch economy to the
German trade controls.128 Another method to circumvent trade controls, which both
German and Dutch companies practised, was by moving into the processing trade:
manufacturing finished goods from semi-manufactured goods, semi-manufactured
goods from raw materials, or even merely upgrading semi-manufactured goods. The
factory of Thyssen in Hamborn, near Duisburg, for instance, received permission to
import coking coal from the United States to produce cokes. After the coking
process, these cokes would be exported again, as their price was too high for the
German market. All this would be done free of charge to the owner of the coking
coal, but because of the value of the by-products of the coking process (gas, tar,
benzene, ammonia salts), the plant could produce without losses. Furthermore, it
would allow Thyssen to restart production of some of its coking ovens, of which 345
out of 883 were now out of commission due to lack of coal. What is particularly
interesting is that Thyssen declared it would buy these coking coals from ‘a Dutch
company, the Vulcaan Coal Company’.129 In fact, this firm was just one of many the
Dutch firms that were part of the Thyssen concern.
128
BArch R 3101/2738 fol.254-263 Report by a Dutch expert on the reaction of the Dutch economy to the
German trade controls, relayed by the Auswärtiges Amt to the Reichswirtschaftsministerium, Berlin, 15-12-1921.
129
BArch R 3101/20576 August Thyssen-Hütte, Gewerkschaft Hamborn to the Reichskommissar für die
Kohlenverteilung, Abteilung Einfuhr, 23-8-1920 Betr. Verkokung amerikanischer Kokskohlen; BArch R
3101/20576 Reichskommissar für die Kohlenverteilung to Reichsfinanzministerium, 27-8-1920; BArch R
3101/20576. Reichsminister der Finanzen to Reichskommissar für die Kohlenverteilung, 10-9-1920.
109
Jeroen Euwe 3
Sources: CBS, Jaarcijfers voor Nederland 1924/1925 (The Hague 1926); CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in
tijdreeksen, 1800-1999 (Voorburg 2001); A. Maddison Dynamic forces in Capitalist Development. A long-run
130
comparative view (1991 Oxford); Own calculations.
According to a Dutch contemporary source, the Philips light bulb factory used similar
tactics to supply the German market through German factories.131 Thus, inflation not
only drove German companies to invest in the Netherlands, it also led to a stream of
investments in the opposite direction. Initially, German banks and trading
companies used the Netherlands as a neutral business outlet for German imports
and exports, while the Dutch had mainly invested in all aspects of production in
Germany, from coal mining to margarine. The post-war economic troubles in
Germany disrupted normal economic relations, yet due to these extensive mutual
investments in transport, trade and industry, Dutch-German economic relations
even became closer than before. When in 1925 the Germans implemented their
new trade policy, this would herald yet another wave of Dutch investments in
Germany, as Dutch business sought to circumvent the radically raised tariffs. As the
prime motivation had changed to evading trade barriers, this process is described in
the next chapter.
130
Data received from Hein Klemann.
BArch R 3101/2738 fol.254-263 Report by a Dutch expert on the reaction of the Dutch economy to the
German trade controls, relayed by the Auswärtiges Amt to the Reichswirtschaftsministerium, Berlin, 15-12-1921.
131
110
Jeroen Euwe 3
According to Richard Kiliani, the German Consul General in Amsterdam, the
Germans were, due to the combination of Dutch financial services and the large
scale founding of German daughter companies in the Netherlands, by the summer of
1920, ‘extraordinarily dependent on Holland’.132 In fact, Kiliani, who would in 1922
published a book on the banks in Amsterdam and the economy of Central Europe,
continued, ‘the Guilder is already, if you wants to express it like that, Germany’s
gold-backed currency, and after all we are basically returning to the world market
under the Dutch flag.’133 Four years later, in February 1924, Hermann Prince von
Hatzfeldt, who had succeeded Kiliani as German Consul-General in Amsterdam,
submitted a confidential report on the international position of the Amsterdam
financial markets, and its importance to Germany. He concluded ‘that today it can
be regarded as one of the major foreign exchange markets in the world, as the most
important foreign base of the German banking world, as one of the prime wool
trading markets of the continent, as centre for the financing of raw materials for the
German industry, as the seat of the most important international banks for Central
Europe.’ 134 According to Hatzfeldt, Amsterdam’s role was changing: ‘In 1919, it was
necessary to rebuild the bridge connecting Germany with the world, which had been
disconnected by the war. Today the task of Holland is more significant: it provides
the large hinterland with loans from all major countries, in order to overcome the
worst crisis the German economy has faced since the existence of the Reich.’135 Now
that stabilization of the German currency had proved durable and the Dawes-plan
was a success, an immense stream of credit flowed into Germany. But although
Germany was no longer solely dependent on the services of the Amsterdam financial
centre, the links between the two would – as Hatzfeldt predicted – remain strong.
132
BArch R 3101/2736 fol.166-167 Kiliani, Deutsches Generalkonsulat, Amsterdam, to the Auswärtige Amt,
Berlin. Absolutely secret! 18 Juni 1920.
133
Idem; See: Richard Kiliani, Die Großbanken-Entwicklung in Holland und die Mittel-Europäische Wirtschaft
(Amsterdam 1921).
134
BArch R 3101/20210 Fol. 196-200, Confidential report on the Amsterdam financial market by Prinz Hatzfeldt,
Deutsches General-Konsulat, Amsterdam, to the Auswärtige Amt, Berlin. 27 February 1924.
135
Idem.
111
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.6
The development of the Amsterdam capital market
During the latter parts of the 1920s, German companies would be active on the
Dutch capital market. The first post-war years though, foreign issues were rare
(Table 3.3). Domestic issues however, showed a flurry of activity. Many Dutch bonds
were issued as the Dutch economy expanded and the government sought to finance
its debts which had grown considerably during the war.136 The new German banks
were very active in this market, being especially interested in Dutch government
bonds. These banks were considered to be responsible for the success of the many
Dutch issues done in the years immediately after the war.137 As the global economic
crisis of 1920 set in, however, the activity on the capital market was cut short.
Although between 1920 and 1924 there were some foreign emissions, it was only
with the end of the crisis and the re-adoption of the gold standard in 1925 by a
number of countries, among which the Netherlands and Great Britain, that the
international capital market expanded significantly (Table 3.3). While the
Amsterdam capital market would remain significantly smaller than those of London
and New York, throughout the period 1922-1930 the volume of international
emissions in Amsterdam was substantially larger than in the Paris or any other
continental capital market.138 Until 1928 France had a law forbidding the export of
capital. After this was repealed, some foreign issues were floated in Paris, but
nonetheless its importance as an international capital market was still considerably
less than Amsterdam’s. With regards to German bonds – almost no German shares
were issued here – Amsterdam even was an important competitor to London, and in
1926 and 1927 significantly more German bonds were issued in Amsterdam than in
the British financial centre.139 Apart from German, a growing number of bonds and
stocks from other countries were placed in the Netherlands as well. Between 1926
and 1928 – the heyday of Amsterdam as an international financial centre – 40 per
cent of the foreign issues offered were of German origin. France (14 per cent),
Belgium (10 per cent), and the United States (7 per cent) were of far lesser
136
Archive DNB, 2.3/544/1, Kapitaalmarkt/emissies te Amsterdam. Report ‘The Dutch Capital Market 19251928’, dated 9 January 1929; Renooij, De Nederlandse emissiemarkt, 108-109.
137
Tetrode, ‘Het Buitenlandsch Kapitaal in Nederland’, 86.
138
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 174.
139
Idem, 26.
112
Jeroen Euwe 3
importance.140 These foreign issues usually offered a better return than the Dutch
ones. This not only drew foreign capital, but attracted Dutch investors as well. As a
result, they were often greatly over-subscribed.141 Unfortunately no statistical data
on the amount and origin of issues in Dutch possession have ever been collected for
this period, apart from an investigation done by De Nederlandsche Bank in 1933.
Table 3.2: German issues placed in the Netherlands, by currency. Jan. 1925 - March 1928
Each currency converted to millions of guilders
Year
US
dollars
54.0
Pounds
1925
Dutch
guilders
14.9
12.1
Goldmark
0.7
1926
24.4
82.7
12.7
3.6
14.8
1927
34.3
43.3
13.0
1.2
19.3
Jan-Mar 1928
11.4
9.3
10.1
0.6
14.2
Total
85.0
189.3
27.4
16.6
33.5
24.8
Rentenmark
Reichsmark
Swiss
Francs
3.9
Total
85.6
3.4
141.6
2.9
114.0
45.6
10.2
386.8
Source: Archive DNB; 2.3/3053/1; Duitse emissies in Nederland. Notes by Vissering to Morgan, detailing the
German issues placed each month; Economisch Statistische Berichten, various reports on currency rates (19251928); Own calculations.
The central bank inquiry form received over 47.500 replies, stating the nominal
value of the German bonds in Dutch possession at ƒ 431 million, plus shares with a
total nominal value of ƒ 263 million.142 According to some, Amsterdam functioned to
a large degree as a clearing house for foreign issues, which attracted mostly foreign
money. In this scenario, the Dutch would have had to acquire a large part of their
foreign assets abroad.143 From the inquiry by the central bank it is clear that the
estimate by Theodor Metz that about 75 per cent of these German issues remained
in Dutch hands is probably correct.144 As the German hyper-inflation had made all
older bonds worthless, all German bonds placed in the Netherlands were dated after
this financial crisis. Consequently, the German bonds in Dutch possession were
probably issued in Amsterdam after 1924. Of the German issues from 1926 up to
and including 1928, over 51 per cent were done by industry, with banks – including
mortgage banks – a distant second at 28.4 per cent. The bonds issued by the
140
Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, Monatsbericht No.2 (February 1928), 40-41; Idem, (February 1929), 37-38;
Own calculations.
141
Schmitz, Der Amsterdamer Geldmarkt, 44.
142
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V., Verslag van de Nederlandsche Bank N.V. over het boekjaar 1933-1934,
uitgebracht in de algemeene vergadering van aandeelhouders op 12 juni 1934 (Amsterdam 1934) 21.
143
Rapport der commissie van advies inzake de toelating van buitenlandsche emissies (The Hague 1927) 18.
144
Metz, Die Niederlande als Käufer, 18.
113
Jeroen Euwe 3
German state, its constituent states and local government comprised 13.7 per cent
of the German issues in Amsterdam during the period.145
Table 3.3: Bonds and stocks issued in the Netherlands 1918-1933
In percents of total
emissions
In millions of guilders
Year
Netherlands
and colonies
1918
1919
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
663
1210
1214
500
448
299
394
233
264
210
429
402
439
265
Foreign
bonds and
stocks
Total
0
0
2
18
22
11
49
156
301
380
377
162
251
42
663
1210
1215
518
470
310
443
389
565
590
806
56
690
307
Netherlands
and colonies
Foreign
bonds and
stocks
100
100
100
97
95
96
89
60
47
36
53
71
64
86
0
0
0
3
5
4
11
40
53
64
47
29
36
14
Source: D. C. Renooij, De Nederlandse emissiemarkt van 1904 tot 1939 (Amsterdam 1951) 100; Own calculations.
The capital export that resulted from the extraordinarily high number of foreign
emissions – in 1926 and 1927 foreign emissions surpassed domestic emissions, and
many of these were in foreign currencies (tables 3.2 and 3.3) – was a matter of some
concern for both De Nederlandsche Bank and the Dutch government. Already in
November 1925, an ‘advisory committee on the admissibility of foreign emissions’
was therefore called into being, which delivered its report nineteen months later. As
was to be expected, the report argued that the free movement of capital was
essential for international payments, which – considering the importance of
international trade for the Dutch economy – should not be hampered in any way.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of a ban on foreign emissions was questioned, since
145
Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, Monthly Review No. 2 (February 1928) 40-41; Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, Monthly Review No. 2, (February 1929), 37-38; Own calculations. It should be noted, that these
years do not include the issue of the Dawes, nor the Young loans. These loans were issued before and after this
period, respectively.
114
Jeroen Euwe 3
bonds could always be acquired abroad.146 Other ways of establishing a measure of
control were ineffective. Neither the Nederlandsche Bank nor the Vereeniging voor
den Effectenhandel – the Association that regulated the Amsterdam Stock Exchange
– had any real influence on the issues that were floated on the Amsterdam market,
as the Vereeninging could only deny an official quotation on the stock exchange,
while the Central Bank could refuse issues as collateral for loans. Since issues that
were not accepted for notation on the exchange found a substantial unofficial
market in Amsterdam, the effect of such a refusal was limited.147 While its refusal to
ban foreign emissions indicates the importance of foreign trade, only the promotion
by the Dutch government of the issues placed in Amsterdam as part of the 1924
Dawes-plan clearly demonstrates that the government tried to steer the capital
market towards financing German economic recovery.148 The promotion of these
loans was successful: after the United States, Great Britain, and France – who for
political reasons took a large share – the Dutch were the largest participants in both
the 1924 Dawes and the 1929 Young loans.149
146
Rapport der commissie van advies inzake de toelating van buitenlandsche emissies, 8, 18.
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 86.
148
‘Pleidooi voor opname Duitsche emissies in notering prijscourant Vereeniging voor de Effectenhandel.’
Supplement Algemeen Handelsblad, 26 September 1925.
149
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 26-27.
147
115
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.7
The development of the Amsterdam money market
Much more than the capital market, the money market shows the extent of the
economic bonds between the Netherlands and Germany. It is here, that trade
relations and related activities express themselves in short-term credits. The overall
volume of the short-term credits and the answer to the question who provided them
to whom, offer a detailed insight in the nature of the economic relations between
Germany and its creditors. Therefore, it is a pity that the full extent of Germany’s
financial obligations was only recorded, when the country was in the midst of a deep
depression, and its trade had plummeted. Only the July 1931 Stillhalte-Abkommen, a
moratorium agreement between Germany and its foreign creditors to reduce
interest payments and stop repayments completely for a limited, but in fact every
time extended period, was the reason that such an overview was needed.
According to the ensuing report, after the United States, the Netherlands
was Germany’s largest short-term creditor. Most – 67 per cent – of the Dutch shortterm credits to Germany were from Dutch banks and non-banking companies to
German non-banking companies, implying that these credits were used to finance
real economic transactions. For the other major creditors, the United States and
Great Britain, this was 28 per cent and 40 per cent respectively.150 Whereas
American banks had predominantly furnished loans to German banks – which had
used much of these to provide long-term loans within Germany – Dutch banks
directly financed the German industry, agriculture, and trade. In these aspects, the
Dutch were by far Germany’s most important creditor (Table 3.4). The same applies
to the loans from foreign companies to German companies: again in this type of
loans the Dutch were by far the most important creditors to Germany. In other
words, much more than any other country, money from the Dutch money market
was used to actively promote German economic activity that was of benefit to the
Dutch economy, which to a great extent relied on exports and transit shipping to
and from Germany. By furnishing these loans, Germany could import products from
the Netherlands and the Netherlands East Indies (Indonesia), while German industry
150
Archive DNB, 2.3/501/1 Duitschlands schulden. German Report ‘Aufteilung der kurzfristigen ausländischen
Kredite an Deutschland nach Gläubigern, Schuldnern und Ländern (Stand v. 28.Juli 1931)’, dated 10 December
1931; Own calculations.
116
Jeroen Euwe 3
was enabled to import the raw materials it needed, which were mostly shipped
through Rotterdam and from there were transported to the Ruhr by Rhine barge or
train.
Table 3.4: Germany's short-term debt by most important creditors. 28 July 1931, in
million RM.
Netherlands
USA
UK
France
Switzerland
Foreign banks to:
German industry,
agriculture, trade
German banks
German
government bodies
Reichsbank and
Golddiskontbank
Total
Foreign trade and
industry to:
German trade and
industry
German banks
Total
Other foreign creditors
to German debtors
Total sum
793
458
389
1724
506
1083
50
279
507
621
18
0
116
210
65
21
24
5
63
0
1269
2439
1675
358
1191
587
189
776
491
201
692
318
38
356
163
128
291
333
325
658
24
2069
12
3143
23
2054
7
656
29
1878
Sources: Archive DNB, 2.3/501/1 Duitschlands schulden, German Report ‘Aufteilung der kurzfristigen
ausländischen Kredite an Deutschland nach Gläubigern, Schuldnern und Ländern (Stand v. 28. Juli 1931).’ Dated
10 December 1931.
Given the importance of acceptances in financing international trade and the
volume of the Dutch acceptance market, it is therefore of interest to examine in
some detail the developments the growth of the acceptance market, the role of
German banks in this development, and the policy of the Nederlandsche Bank.
The foreign exchange market
A prerequisite for a flourishing acceptance market is the existence of an active
currency market, because unless both buyer and seller are using the same currency,
there will have to be a moment when currencies are converted. Before the war,
117
Jeroen Euwe 3
there had been no Amsterdam currency market of any importance. However, due to
the combination of post-war monetary instability and the volume of the Dutch
money market, such a market, where the German Mark was actively traded, came
into being.
Because of the diminishing activity of Dutch trade and industry during the
war, account balances had grown considerably.151 As these deposits could be
requested at any moment, the banks were in dire need of short-term investments.
During the first post-war years, some of these were found in speculation à la hausse
– bull speculation – in the German Mark, which was steadily decreasing in value, but
for some time would not yet be destroyed as a currency. In the Netherlands,
speculators thought over and over again that this time, the German currency had hit
rock bottom and would start to rise again. That such an important nation would
accept without any resistance a complete and utter collapse of its currency, was
simply unthinkable.152 Some economists were hopeful as well. Up to April 1923, they
were still seeing an increased business activity in Germany, although it was
conceded that this did not lead to greater national prosperity, and the opinion was
expressed that ‘the strength of resistance to the occupation of the Ruhr does not
support the view that Germany has been on the verge of a complete economic
collapse.’153 This conviction made speculation in Marks popular, not just in the
Netherlands, but also in countries like Denmark or the United States.154 Dutch
civilians from all walks of life as well as banks bought large amounts of Marks, which
the German banks were only too willing to sell, as both they, and the German
population expected the Mark to decrease still further in value.155 Therefore,
Germans were speculating à la baisse – bear speculation – on a similar large scale as
some foreigners were speculating on a recovering of the Mark. With an estimated
151
‘Onze groote banken in 1918 en de voorafgaande 5 jaren.’ In- en Uitvoer. Handels-economisch maandblad
voor Nederland en zijne koloniën (23 July 1919); Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, ‘Development of Dutch
Banking Business, part II.’ Monthly Review (October 1920) 25-29; Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum,
23.
152
A. Frankfurther, In klinkende munt. Herinneringen van een bankier (Amsterdam 1961) 50.
153
Joseph S. Davis, ‘Economic and Financial Progress in Europe.’ In: The Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol.
5, No. 2 (Apr., 1923), 79-113, here 80.
154
‘De koers van de mark.’ Het Vaderland, 27-06-1920, Ochtend; Mixon, The Foreign Exchange Option Market,
1917-1921.
155
Frankfurther, In klinkende munt, 50; ‘De Markenkoers.’ H.D. de Vos’ Wekelijksch Uitlotingsblad (1 Sept. 1921);
‘De dalende mark. Hoog-conjunctuur en beurswinst.’ De Telegraaf (4 October 1921); ‘De groote uitverkoop.’
Algemeen Handelsblad (Avondblad 19 Nov. 1921); Economisch Statistische Berichten, 25 April 1923.
118
Jeroen Euwe 3
daily trading volume in Marks of 5 million pounds – over ƒ 60 million –, the
Amsterdam currency market suffered tremendous losses.156 This trading volume was
not entirely due to the German banks: several central banks from Central Europe
maintained large balances in Amsterdam to support their exchanges.157 As the
currency market – and the use of currency options to safeguard against the then
oftentimes wildly fluctuating currencies – was exceedingly important for the
development of the burgeoning acceptance market, the Nederlandsche Bank was
also actively involved, using a substantial portfolio of foreign acceptances and
currency in order to restrict sudden fluctuations in the exchange rates.158
The acceptance market
The popularity of acceptances had started to grow during the war, causing the
president of the Nederlandsche Bank to conclude in June 1917: ‘The Dutch florin has
assumed a far greater significance on the international money and bill market, and
this fact will come into even greater prominence when at the conclusion of the
peace the international bill market has recovered its freedom of movement on all
sides.’159 He would turn out to be right, even though the ‘freedom of movement on
all sides’ did not to apply to Germany. On the contrary, the Dutch acceptance (or
bill) market would even gain extra impetus because of the restricted German access
to other international money and capital markets. As a consequence, during the
latter half of the 1920s, acceptances comprised about 30 per cent of the volume of
the money market.160 According to the director of the Amsterdam German bank H.
Albert de Bary & Co., 75 per cent of all acceptance credits were to German
debtors.161 When comparing the statistics of the Netherlands bank with the statistics
given in reports on German debts at the time of the Stillhalte, this percentage seems
156
Christoph Kreutzmüller, Händler und Handlungsgehilfen. Der Finanzplatz Amsterdam und die deutschen
Großbanken (1918-1945) (Stuttgart 2005) 38; Houwink ten Cate, Bruins’ Berlijnse besprekingen, 6.
157
Madden, Nadler, International Money Markets, 466; Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 24.
158
Archive DNB, 2.3/63/1, De Amsterdamse wisselmarkt. Report with the same title by G. van Buttigha Wichers
of the Nederlandsche Bank on the Amsterdam foreign exchange market, June 1928; Hartmann, Amsterdam als
financieel centrum, 60-62, 112-113.
159
G. Vissering, ‘The Netherlands Bank and the War.’ Economic Journal, Vol. 27, No. 106 (June, 1917) 159-186,
there 186.
160
Schmitz, Der Amsterdamer Geldmarkt, 7; Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 47-49.
161
Houwink ten Cate, ‘Amsterdam als Finanzplatz Deutschlands’, 178.
119
Jeroen Euwe 3
credible. Furthermore, among the Dutch business community, credit on prolongatie
– a renewable loan using stocks as collateral – remained the financial instrument of
choice, comprising 40-50 per cent of the money market.162
The development of the acceptance market was for a large part the result of
the policy of the Nederlandsche Bank. This institution not only strived to maintain a
low and stable discount rate compared to competing financial centres, it also
regulated the growth of the acceptance market.163 To do so, it had two official
instruments: firstly, it could decide which banks were allowed to rediscount, i.e. sell
their acceptances to the bank. Normally, the banks were limited by their liquidity,
the ratio of obligations to pay and the capability to do so, in the amount of
acceptance credit they could grant. The option of rediscounting acceptances at the
Nederlandsche Bank removed this limitation to a much higher level. The added
security offered by the central bank transformed them into beloved instruments for
short-term investments by the general public. Banks whose acceptances were
eligible for rediscounting were thus able to resell these to the public, freeing money
to grant new acceptances. As long as sufficient interest existed in acceptances as
investment, this market was able to expand. Those banks whose acceptances were
declared eligible for rediscounting – i.e. whose acceptances were bankable – were
limited to a maximum amount payable based on the ratio between acceptances and
the banks’ own capital. This ratio – the second policy instrument of the
Nederlandsche Bank – was not a given, but depended on the risks involved with a
particular portfolio. When the market was perceived to be instable, or when either
individual portfolios or the market as a whole focussed too much on a particular
commodity, the bank would adjust the ratio.164
From the start, the policy of the Nederlandsche Bank was geared towards
maximizing the use of the acceptance market to further Dutch economic interests.
This is evident both from its promotion of reimbursement credits and from its policy
regarding the eligibility for the rediscounting of acceptances. When in 1917 the
acceptances created by Dutch banks were declared bankable, this was subject to
162
Schmitz, Der Amsterdamer Geldmarkt, 7, 22.
G.W.J. Bruins, ‘The Netherlands Bank, 1926-7.’ Economic Journal, Vol.37, No. 148 (Dec., 1927) 672-676, there
675-676.
164
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 102.
163
120
Jeroen Euwe 3
prior consent by the central bank and their benefit to Dutch interests. In April 1922
the first rule in most cases was dropped. The paperwork caused delays that harmed
trade as well as the growth of the sector. Only larger acceptances and those of a
special nature still needed consent of the central bank.165 At that time, the German
banks in Amsterdam were as well increasingly active on the acceptance market.
Their acceptances were not bankable, and thus could not be sold in Amsterdam
where there was no market for such non-bankable acceptances. Therefore, these
either had to be held in portfolio – limiting the volume of business of these banks –
or they had to be sold in London or New York, where there was such a market.166
Of course, the German banks, which were formally Dutch as their
Amsterdam offices were Dutch Naamloze Vennootschappen – limited companies –,
approached the Nederlandsche Bank with the request to declare their acceptances
bankable as well. At first, the bank discussed the matter within its Commission of
Advice, where there was consensus that there should be no discrimination against
the new banks, as long as they were legally Dutch. Nevertheless, it was concluded
that it would be prudent to see how these banks developed and whether they were
here to stay.167 When over a year and a half later again the Nederlandsche bank was
confronted with requests regarding rediscounting, it decided to ask advice from the
Dutch banking community. In a meeting of its Commission of Advice on 15
December 1922, and again on 22 December, the response of the Dutch bank – which
was decidedly negative – was discussed.168 In the judgement of both the Dutch
banks and the Nederlandsche Bank, to grant the request would at that time not
result in an expansion of the acceptance market. As the Nederlandsche Bank had no
insight into the financial standing and activities of the German banks, the risks also
were considered to be too great. In principle though, the majority of the members
had no fundamental objections to granting the request at a later date. The following
years, the question would arise regularly again, every time resulting in a refusal. The
reasons for this varied over time, from an assessment that the Dutch banks had
165
Archive DNB, 2.3/681/1, Discontering. Declaration by the Nederlandsche Bank, 7 Februari; Archive DNB,
2.3/681/1, Standard confirmation to the replies by the individual banks, 7 April 1922.
166
Schmitz, Der Amsterdamer Geldmarkt, 106; Houwink, Acceptcrediet, 90.
167
Archive DNB, inv.nr. 3317. Commissie van Advies, 11 March 1921.
168
Archive DNB, inv.nr. 3319. Commissie van Advies, 15 Dec. 1922 and 22 Dec.1922.
121
Jeroen Euwe 3
more than enough capacity to ensure further growth – i.e. the German banks would
only provide unwanted competition – to the conviction that the German banks
would exclusively use German companies in all aspects related to their acceptances:
German shipping companies, insurance, etcetera. An important and probably
decisive argument, that the stability of the guilder would suffer because the German
banks would work on too large a scale for the Amsterdam market, was shared by the
Nederlandsche Bank.169 J.P. van Tienhoven of the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging
was ‘delighted when the German banks established themselves here and he would
at this time [March 1923 J.E.] not like to see them leave.’170 He was however of the
opinion that ‘they only help the Amsterdam market, as long as they are prevented
from endangering the guilder, in other words: as long as their acceptances are
ineligible for rediscounting.’171 The possibility that these banks would relocate to
another country because of the continued refusal was considered to be negligible, as
their acceptances would not be bankable there either.172
To solve the dilemma, early in 1924, a work-around was constructed: the
German banks joined forces with Dutch banks, as well as banks from Switzerland,
England and Sweden, and founded specialized acceptance institutions. In January
and February 1924, the Internationale Bank, the Nederlandsche Accept
Maatschappij, and the Internationale Crediet Compagnie were founded. In October
that year, the Wolbank followed. The last one was specialized in the financing of the
continental wool trade, which had shifted from Antwerp to Amsterdam after the
war.173 The reimbursement credits of these institutions were immediately declared
to be eligible for rediscounting. In March 1925, the Nederlandsche Bank dropped the
requirement that the acceptances eligible to be re-discountable had to further
Dutch interests, thus paving the way for further growth. Probably this was done in
anticipation of the return to the gold standard in April that year, and of the renewed
169
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Meeting of the board of the Nederlandsche Bank with representatives of the major
Dutch banks, 21 March 1923; Archive DNB, inv. nr. 3319 Commissie van Advies, 2 March 1923; Archive DNB, inv.
nr. 3319 Commissie van Advies, 23 March 1923.
170
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Meeting of the board of the Nederlandsche Bank with representatives of the major
Dutch banks, 21 March 1923.
171
Idem.
172
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Meeting of the board of the Nederlandsche Bank with representatives of the major
Dutch banks, 21 March 1923.
173
Madden, Nadler, International Money Markets, 467; Jongman, Geldmarkt, 225; Archive DNB, inv. nr. 3319.
Commissie van Advies, 30 October 1922.
122
Jeroen Euwe 3
international competition this would bring. Now, it was merely required that the
acceptances would not harm the Dutch interests. In November of the same year, the
Bank also recognized the need for a more active role of the bill brokers in order to
assure a more even match between supply and demand on the bill market which
had been decidedly uneven. It enhanced the possibilities of the bill brokers to
borrow money on acceptance credits, thereby enabling them to do more
business.174
It was in these circumstances, that W. Redelmeier, director of the
Amsterdam German bank H. Albert de Bary & Co., decided to use the press as a
instrument to get the Nederlandsche Bank to declare the acceptances of the
Amsterdam German banks eligible for rediscounting. In January of 1926, an article
appeared, written by Redelmeier, on the importance of the German banks in
Amsterdam for the Dutch financial market.175 Redelmeier made a thinly veiled
argument that the German banks should be allowed to rediscount their acceptances
at the Nederlandsche Bank. This time, the plea did not fall on deaf ears. Firstly, the
article started a broad discussion in the Dutch press. The Telegraaf – a liberalconservative daily newspaper – remarked, for instance, that while the German banks
had become an important factor in the Amsterdam financial market, they had done
so without unduly competition with the Dutch banks. Yet they were still
discriminated, as they could not become a member of the stock exchange and their
acceptances were ineligible for rediscounting.176
Once again, the Nederlandsche Bank decided to do a investigation on the
opinions within the banking community.177 This was followed by a meeting of the
board of directors with Redelmeier, who was asked how he envisioned the German
banks would be able to promote further growth of the acceptance market. 178
Although the Dutch banks turned out to be still deeply divided on the issue, several
influential bankers – most notably C.E. ter Meulen of Hope & Co. and A.J. van Hengel
174
Archive DNB, 2.12/282/1, Geldmarktbeleid, discontopolitiek faciliteiten aan wisselmakelaars, speciale
belenings- en discontofaciliteit. 24 Nov. 1925 and 2 December 1925. Meetings of representatives of Dutch bill
brokers with members of the board of the Nederlandsche Bank.
175
W. Redelmeier, ‘Die Deutschen Banken in Amsterdam.’ In: Jubileumnummer In- en Uitvoer (Januari 1926).
176
De Telegraaf, 27 Feb. 1926.
177
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Reports of meetings of representatives of leading Dutch banks, 5-25 February 1926.
178
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Meeting of W. Redelmeier with the board of directors of the Nederlandsche Bank, 19
Februari 1926.
123
Jeroen Euwe 3
of the Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging – had changed their position and now were
in favour, albeit solely regarding self-liquidating reimbursement credits: acceptances
used to pay for goods. The latter was a standard condition for the rediscounting of
acceptances with the central bank, but it was suspected that the German banks tried
to disguise finance bills as reimbursement credits.179
All things considered, the board of the Nederlandsche Bank was convinced
the measure would indeed promote further growth and on 25 March declared the
acceptances of the German banks to be – albeit within certain restrictions –
bankable.180 This may seem to have been unprecedented, as the German banks in
London had never been granted this privilege by the Bank of England.181 It should
however be noted, that the German banks in Amsterdam were, with the exception
of the Dutch branch of the Deutsche Bank, formally Dutch banks, whereas in London
the German banks had mostly only had branches. Moreover, because of the volume
of the London money market the German banks had never needed this privilege.
Interestingly, due to circumstances beyond the control of the central bank,
the rate their acceptance credits commanded on the market was still – and would
continue to be – slightly above prime rate.182 Another year would pass, before in
May 1927 the constrictions regarding the rediscounting by German banks were
lifted. As of that date, those banks wishing to have the ability to rediscount their
acceptances with the central bank, only had to report these. Except for the
provisions of the arrangement of April 1922, the acceptance market was now free of
limiting regulations. However, all participating banks were allocated a maximum
sum of acceptances based on their balance – which they had to provide for
inspection – and the precise nature of the acceptances was checked as well.183 The
179
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Meeting of C.E. ter Meulen with the board of the Nederlandsche Bank, 5 Feb. 1926;
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Meeting of A.J. van Hengel with the board of the Nederlandsche Bank, 4 Feb. 1926.
180
Archive DNB, 2.1/18/1, Declaration by the Nederlandsche Bank, 25 March 1926.
181
Archive DNB, 8.2/2060/1 Commissie 11 March 1921, point 2 ‘Verleenen van faciliteiten aan buitenlandsche
Bankinstellingen’.
182
‘Continental Discount Markets. I. – Amsterdam’, The Economist (4 October 1930).
183
Archive DNB, 2.121.3/10/1, Arrangement betreffende discontabiliteit van wissels waaraan
goederentransacties met het buitenland ten grondslag liggen. Reports on total acceptances allowed versus
actual acceptances in portfolio and on the nature and quality of the material; Archive DNB, 2.3/681/1,
Declaration by the Nederlandsche Bank, 7 Februari; Archive DNB, 2.121.3/10/1, Standard confirmation to the
replies by the individual banks, 7 April 1922.
124
Jeroen Euwe 3
control by the Nederlandsche Bank of both the quality and the maximum volume of
the bills in circulation was thus still very much intact.
Table 3.5: Turnover of acceptances as reported to the Netherlands Bank in million guilders.
Index (1922-23 = 100).
Financial
year
1922-23
1923-24
1924-25
1925-26
1926-27
1927-28
1928-29
1929-30
1930-31
1931-32
1932-33
Total
Divided by financier, in percentages
Index
Dutch
banks
36
35
59
130
369
710
708
799
724
376
215
100
96
163
360
1019
1960
1954
2207
2000
1040
594
100
100
95
87
81
75
79
75
77
82
82
Amsterdam Acceptance Other
German
banks
foreign
banks
banks
0
0
0
5
0
10
0
15
17
5
16
3
16
2
15
6
13
4
12
5
0
0
0
2
4
4
2
7
2
1
1
Sources: Archive DNB, 2.121.3/10/1, arrangement, betreffende discontabiliteit van wissels waaraan
goederentransacties met het buitenland ten grondslag liggen. Arrangement, verstrekte opgaven gedurende een
boekjaar. Miscellaneous reports for the period 1922-1933; Own calculations.
Despite the strict policy of the Nederlandsche Bank, it is difficult to say just how
much of the success of the Amsterdam acceptance market, was due to its policy. The
Bank wanted to ensure a steady rather than explosive growth, as it regarded
stability on the Amsterdam financial market a prerequisite for the long-term
establishment of an international financial centre. In 1930, despite the sudden rise
of Paris as a financial centre after the stabilization of the Franc in 1926, Amsterdam
was the largest international financial centre on the European continent.184 The
conservative policy of the Dutch central bank assured stable foundations for the
acceptance market, what was demonstrated in July 1931 as Amsterdam banks
remained unshaken when, as a result of the Stillhalte, all acceptances and other
short-term financial claims on Germany, were frozen.185 Just how much its policy
had actually influenced the growth of the market is another matter.
184
185
‘Continental Discount Markets. I. – Amsterdam.’ The Economist (4 October 1930).
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 102.
125
Jeroen Euwe 3
When the acceptances that were automatically eligible for rediscounting
following the stipulations of April 1922 known as ‘Arrangement 4-22B’ are regarded,
the market started to expand during 1924, and reached a new plateau at an annual
turnover of on average 735 million guilders a year during the period April 1927March 1931 (Table 3.5). This was not the turnover of the market as a whole,
however. All acceptances used with regards to the financing of seasonal or storage
credit, finance bills for companies, or acceptances for large sums had to be approved
on a case-by-case basis by the Commissie van Advies – Advisory Committee – of the
Nederlandsche Bank.186 During the period of the expansion of the acceptance
market, these specially approved acceptances remained fairly constant, albeit at a
high level (Table 3.6).
Table 3.6: Acceptances reported to the Nederlandsche Bank. February 1926-April 1929 in
million guilders.
Year
Month
Arrangement 4-22B
Special arrangement
1926
February
July
October
January
April
July
October
January
April
July
October
January
April
45
62
72
103
125
186
182
177
162
152
161
161
224
129
125
84
144
169
146
144
145
137
124
124
142
141
1927
1928
1929
Total
174
187
156
247
294
332
326
322
299
276
285
303
365
Sources: Archive DNB, 2.121.3/0008/1, kredieten waarbij het buitenland betrokken is, N&E kredieten. Various
reports, February 1926-April 1929; Own calculations.
Given the fluid nature of the money employed on the money market, and the
acceptance market in particular, the interest rate was of great importance. The
discount rate was lowered several times during 1924 and 1925, and from April 1925
until October 1927 Amsterdam was considerably cheaper than its competitors.
When eventually the interest rate had to be raised, it was at the same level as
186
Archive DNB, inv. nr. 3316 - 3328. Minutes of meetings of the Commissie van Advies, 1919-1933.
126
Jeroen Euwe 3
London. When the Bank of England raised its discount rate in early February 1929,
the Nederlandsche Bank was able to refrain from doing so until over six weeks
later.187 A clear cause-and-effect relation cannot be established however, as the
period coincided with growing German economic activity due to the end of the
hyperinflation in November 1923 and the adoption of the Dawes-plan in August
1924, and because the expansion on the Dutch market cannot be compared to
developments in other financial centres.
When the specialized acceptance banks were formed in 1924, their
acceptances were immediately declared bankable. However, the market share of
these new banks was small in proportion to the growth of the market during the
same year (Table 3.5). When in March 1926 the German banks were allowed to
rediscount their acceptances at the Nederlandsche Bank, followed by the decision, a
year later, that they would have the same rights as Dutch banks, these banks started
to use the Amsterdam centre for part of the business they formerly conducted in
London. The fears of both the Dutch banks and the central bank that the acceptance
market would expand too fast because the German banks would conduct business
on too large a scale, thereby endangering the stability of the guilder, were proven to
have been unfounded. Because their acceptances were still above prime rate, the
difference in cost between London, New York and Amsterdam was marginal to
them, and they continued to do much of their business elsewhere. Again, the growth
of the Dutch acceptance market was significantly larger than the market share of
these banks. Considering that the available credit on the market always far exceeded
the actual volume of acceptances, and their small market share compared to the
expansion of the market, the policy regarding the German banks had a relatively
small impact on the development of the market.
Of far greater importance were the general restrictions regarding the
rediscounting of acceptances. When in March 1925 the condition that each
acceptance credit should further Dutch economic interests was replaced by the
condition that they should not harm these interests, the potential for growth was
multiplied. That this decision was not made earlier is not surprising, as the Dawes-
187
Hartmann, Amsterdam als financieel centrum, 34-36.
127
Jeroen Euwe 3
plan had only been accepted six months earlier. Nevertheless, the Nederlandsche
Bank could have shown its faith in the German economy by revising its restrictions in
August 1924. In view of the growth of the German economy that year, it is quite
likely that the turnover of the acceptance market would have expanded a few
months earlier. The Nederlandsche Bank however, was conservative in its policies.
Given its experiences during the banking crisis, this is not entirely surprising.
128
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.8
The Depression
Already in 1929, the balance of Dutch foreign investments and foreign credit
dropped by 60 per cent.188 This was for the main part due to a decrease in bonds
being issued, as acceptances would reach their highest level that year. In spite of a
recovery of the capital market in 1930 – due mostly to the Young-loan being issued –
thereafter, the trend would continue downwards. The Stillhalte of July 1931, the
inconvertibility of the mark, and finally, on 22 September, when Britain abandoned
the gold standard, resulting in an unprecedented depreciation of pound sterling,
these events marked the end of Amsterdam’s role as in international financial
centre. The renewed monetary instability abroad caused a sharp decrease of
international capital transactions. In 1931, foreign issues on the capital market were
down 84 per cent relative to the previous year, and by 1933 the international capital
market had diminished to just ƒ 9.3 million, just 2.4 per cent of its highpoint in 1927.
From 1931, German foreign trade was limited by its government’s control of foreign
currency, resulting in a strong decrease. By 1933, the German exports in nominal
prices were just 36 per cent of what they had been in 1929, while German imports
had decreased even more, and were 31 per cent of what they had been four years
earlier.189
In 1929, the total turnover of the Dutch acceptance market had been some ƒ
1.3 billion, of which an estimated ƒ 0.9-1.0 billion was for German customers. The
importance of acceptances in financing German trade is illustrated by a decrease in
acceptances of 49 per cent in 1931-1932, dramatic years for German trade, followed
by an additional drop of 43 per cent the next year. In its heyday, the Dutch
acceptance market supplied some RM 1.5 - 1.7 billion to Germany to finance its
trade. This was close to ten per cent per cent of all German imports.190 During the
first years of the great depression, this dropped off steeply, but then, so did the
volume of Germany’s foreign trade. With a turnover far in excess of the value of
Dutch exports to Germany, the importance of the Dutch acceptance market
188
Hein A.M. Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire. De economische betrekkingen van Nederland met zijn
belangrijkste handelspartners: Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië en België en de Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 19291936 (Amsterdam 1990) 24; CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen, 63.
189
W.G. Hoffmann, Das Wachstum des deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1965)
818-819; Own calculations.
190
Idem; 100 RM = ƒ 59,--; Own calculations.
129
Jeroen Euwe 3
extended far beyond Dutch-German trade. As the report of the German Registration
Office for Foreign Debt shows, three quarters of acceptances were in guilders, and
the remainder in pounds sterling and US dollars (Table 3.8). This does not mean that
three-quarters of all acceptances were used to finance Dutch exports, as for some
internationally traded goods, the guilder-denominated acceptance had indeed
become the standard. Rather, given that much of Dutch-German trade was financed
through other types of short-term loans (Table 3.7), it can be concluded that the
acceptance market was also of great importance in financing German imports from
elsewhere.
Table 3.7: German financial obligations to the Netherlands in million guilders, 1931.
Up to 6
months
Promissory Notes
Acceptances (Reimbursement
credits)
Book debts and loans
Bonds (minus the amount repaid)
Consortial obligations
Contingent liabilities (guarantees,
current liabilities etc.)
Total
6 To 12
months
Long-term
Total
24.9
0.2
1.9
27.0
154.5
997.9
4.5
22.8
0.5
41.6
0.2
0.0
2.7
273.9
345.4
3.6
157.7
1313.4
350.1
26.4
109.7
1314.3
4.5
47.2
64.6
692.0
178.9
2053.5
Source: DNB 2.3/501/1 Confidential report by Reichsbank Official Lütjens to the President of the Nederlandsche
Bank, L.J.A. Trip, 28 November 1931; Own calculations.
By the early 1930s, all forms of international credit had diminished to an
insignificant quantity. The financial needs of German trade and industry had been
the driving force behind the emergence of Amsterdam as a major financial centre.
With Germany in the midst of a deep crisis, the main raison d’être for the
Amsterdam financial market vanished. The activities of the Dutch international
financial market were reduced to a bare minimum, although because the Dutch
maintained the Gold Standard whilst other currencies depreciated – only France,
Belgium, Switzerland, and Germany also maintained parity, although the Reichsmark
was no longer convertible – flight capital was flowing to Amsterdam once again.191
Though, as Dutch foreign trade and the services sector came under increasing
191
Riemens, De financiële ontwikkeling van Nederland, 105-106.
130
Jeroen Euwe 3
pressure due to the relative overvaluation of the Dutch guilder, the direction of
Dutch international capital transactions changed. The balance of foreign investments
and credit for 1931 showed a deficit that would reach a low point of ƒ 164 million in
1933. At the height of Amsterdam’s activities, this had been a surplus of ƒ 267
million.192
Table 3.8: German financial obligations, in percentages of total debt per category, 1931.
RM
DFL
USD
GBP
Promissory notes
Acceptances (Reimbursement credits)
Book debts and loans
Bonds (minus the amount repaid)
Consortial obligations
17.5
0.2
27.8
19.1
13.5
53.4
75.9
51.9
80.9
18.9
15.9
9.2
11.1
12.4
13.0
8.3
63.8
2.9
Contingent liabilities (guarantees, current liabilities
etc.)
Total
13.8
22.6
61.7
59.2
13.2
10.0
10.6
7.5
Source: DNB 2.3/501/1 Confidential report by Reichsbank Official Lütjens to the President of the Nederlandsche
Bank, L.J.A. Trip, 28 November 1931; Own calculations.
192
CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen, 63-64.
131
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.9
Financial services and political relations
Because of their lending to Germany the Dutch seemed in a strong position in their
political dealings with their neighbour to the east during the first half of the 1920s.
The Dutch government did not make use of this, as there were no actual conflicts. In
discussions about the border in the Ems estuary, the Germans themselves yielded to
the Dutch point of view in the hopes of receiving economic help. In negotiations
regarding the compensation for war damages they yielded in one particular case
after being threatened by C.J.K. van Aalst – the most influential Dutch banker, during
the war chairman of the NOT and driving force behind the important credit granted
to the Germans in 1920 – that without a swift solution this credit would be
endangered. Its importance was such that, the Germans decided to pay
compensation since they did not want the issue to interfere with Dutch lending to
German industry. Both of these issues are dealt with in chapter 6.
By the second half of the 1920s, Germany’s situation had changed. Now that
its currency had been stabilized and capital was flowing into the country in the wake
of the Dawes-plan, the economy was recovering, and the country was finally able to
adapt its trade policy and its transport policy to aid in creating a trade surplus. Both
these changes in policy led to conflicts with the Dutch, and in these conflicts, The
Hague either made use of its position as creditor to Germany, or contemplated
doing so. That the Dutch would do so is understandable, since Germany was in a
dominant position in all other economic relations. The trade between the two
countries was more important to the Dutch economy than it was to the German,
while the free movement of goods on the Rhine was protected by the Act of
Mannheim, and therefore not an issue. The financial relations were the only area
within the asymmetrical Dutch-German balance of power where the Dutch were the
stronger party.
The first efforts to use this position were made in the wake of the conversion of the
German debts from old Marks into new Reichsmarks. After the stabilization of the
mark, a great many people both in Germany and abroad were in possession of
securities that were now worthless: the exchange rate with the new mark was a
thousand billion to one (1012). Consequently, many banks were owed money on
132
Jeroen Euwe 3
mortgages that were now also a tiny fraction of what they had been before the
inflation. While trying to exclude those who had tried by speculation to profit from
the inflation, the German government was well aware that some form of restitution
had to be made to those who had suffered losses on these investments. On the
other hand, in the Reichstag it was argued that a conversion at 100 per cent would
restore debts of 78 billion in loans, and 70 billion RM in mortgages and bonds.193
This led to a law that specified conversion at a rate that was dependent on how long
the holder had been in possession. The rates for mortgages, securities and savings
bank balances varied, but according to observers in the Netherlands, the loss to
investors would still be between 75 and 97.5 per cent of their original investment. 194
In spite of vehement opposition from Reichsbank president Schacht, who declared
that any conversion would cause economic stagnation, the law was passed on 16
July 1925.195
The Dutch government saw no reason to protest against the financial losses
by Dutch investors caused by the German financial disaster, since Dutch holders of
German securities were treated on an equal footing with Germans. The Dutch
Vereeniging Effectenbescherming – Association for the Protection of Securities – and
the Vereeniging voor den Effectenhandel – Association for Securities Trading –
disagreed. The Vereeniging Effectenbescherming wrote to the Second CXhamber of
Parliament – where at that moment the debate on the ratification of the DutchGerman trade agreement were held – that, given the fact that the Dutch
government still provided the Germans with a ƒ 150 million (actually ƒ 160 million
J.E.) renewable loan, a forthcoming German proposal would be reasonable.196 Their
letter made no real impact, and the Dutch parliament ratified the agreement. The
Vereeniging voor Effectenhandel expressed its displeasure by not allowing German
securities an official quotation on the exchange.197 Since these issues found eager
buyers on the unofficial Amsterdam market, their efforts were fruitless. As the
193
‘De valorisatie in Duitschland’, Het Vaderland, 11-07-1925, Avond.
‘Vereeniging Effectenbescherming’, Het Vaderland, 28-02-1926 Ochtend.
195
‘Een verklaring van dr. Schacht’, Algemeen Handelsblad, 20-06-1925 Ochtend; ‘Valorisatie in Duitschland. De
tegenwoordige stand’, Algemeen Handelsblad, 14-08-1926 Avond.
196
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: DEZ-dossiers (Directie Economische Zaken),
1919-1940, nummer toegang 2.05.37, inventarisnummer 3260 Brief van de Vereeniging voor Effectenhandel aan
de Kamerfractie van de Binnenhof, Den Haag, 29 Juni 1926.
197
‘Actie tegen de Duitsche valorisatie.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 24-09-1925.
194
133
Jeroen Euwe 3
Telegraaf wrote, ‘the decision […] merely creates an inconvenience.’198 By the spring
of 1927, they were therefore gradually allowing German issues on the exchange.199
There was one institution, however, that had a substantial portfolio of Markdenominated bills, which it insisted to be converted at 100 per cent. This was the
Nederlandsche Bank, who had used these bills as one of a number of financial
instruments to stabilize the exchange rates. This was standard practice, and was not
done as investment. Therefore, so the Dutch Central Bank thought, it deserved to be
repaid in full. These portfolios had been held at the German banks Warburg and of
Mendelssohn. The Nederlandsche Bank first approached these banks with their
demand. Over the course of more than a year, a long correspondence between the
Central Bank and Warburg and Mendelssohn ensued, in which the German banks
denied all responsibility. The Nederlandsche Bank, well aware that it had no legal
rights in the matter, declared it was not interested in formal rights, but in justice. 200
Both German banks sought help from the Reichsbank, which rejected the Dutch
claim as it had, at the beginning of the war, offered to take over the portfolio. Then,
the Nederlandsche Bank had refused this suggestion.201 By April 1925, the conflict
had shifted to the relations between the Nederlandsche Bank and the Reichsbank, as
the Dutch and Germans held different views on what had transpired.202
This was where matters still stood, when on Monday 8 June Ernst Heldring,
the chairman of the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce and president of the
Koninklijke Nederlandsche Stoomboot Maatschappij – KNSM, an important Dutch
shipping company – visited the management of the Nederlandsche Bank. Heldring,
who was a member of the Supervisory Board of the central bank, had asked for a
meeting because he had heard that the bank was contemplating measures against
Germany. Heldring argued that the German Seehafenausnahmetarife – special
railway transport tariffs designed to route traffic to the German North Sea ports –
were harmful to the Dutch economy, and even that the Dutch Finance Minister, who
198
‘Pleidooi voor opname Duitsche emissies in de notering prijscourant Ver.v.Effectenhandel.’ De Telegraaf, 110-1925 Ochtend.
199
BArch R 2/2253 fol. 110-111 Report by the German consulate in Amsterdam to the German foreign office, 82-1927; ‘Duitsche fondsen op de Amsterdamsche beurs.’ Algemeen Handelsblad 05-02-1927 Avond.
200
Archive DNB 8.2/2065/1, Letter by the Nederlandsche Bank to the Mendelssohn Bank, 20-11-1924.
201
Archive DNB 8.2/2065/1, Letter by the Reichsbank to the Nederlandsche Bank, 20-12-1924.
202
Archive DNB 8.2/2065/1, Letter by the Mendelssohn Bank to the Nederlandsche Bank, 15-04-1925.
134
Jeroen Euwe 3
was aware of this, had done nothing.203 The next day, representatives of the three
new Acceptance Banks met with the management of the Bank to discuss what might
be done to change the German attitude against the Netherlands. As Bank president
Vissering put it in his opening remarks, ‘although this matter is primarily the domain
of the government and diplomacy, in practice one often gets more done by taking
matters into one’s own hands.’204 Therefore he would like to hear the ideas of the
gentlemen’s on the German railway rates and on the high tariffs on Dutch exports.
The representatives of the acceptance banks proposed to start by contacting
influential Germans. Reichsbank president Hjalmar Schacht or Reichskanzler Hans
Luther were after al easily available. Vissering, however, obviously wanted to forge
ahead, and the decision was made to send a memo to all banks in the Netherlands,
informing them of possible limiting acceptance credits to Germany.
The next day, both Reichskanzler Luther and Reich Foreign Minister Gustav
Stresemann had agreed to meet with a representative of one of the acceptance
banks by the end of the week, in order to discuss the matter. Even though Vissering
had emphasized that the action was not so much aimed at getting specific results,
but rather at changing the German mentality which had become too self-involved to
take notice of the damage being done to friendly countries, the focus of the action
rapidly became the Seehafenausnahmetarife. On Friday, Vissering met with the
president of the Dutch railways, J.A. Kalff, to discuss these German sea port tariffs.
Consequently, most of the data that were sent to Berlin to illustrate just how much
the Dutch were mistreated was regarding these railway tariffs.205 Vissering’s threat
seemed to be working, as things were happening fast: on the 15 th, the vice-chairman
of the Internationale Bank – one of the three new acceptance banks – telegraphed
from Berlin that next Monday the issue would be discussed at cabinet level. 206
Meanwhile, at a public assembly of the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce
and Industry, Heldring expanded the Dutch threat by calling for banks to be less
203
Archive DNB 8.2/2228/1, Report on a meeting of E. Heldring with the management of the Nederlandsche
Bank, 08-06-1925.
204
Archive DNB 8.2/2228/1, Meeting of the Acceptance Banks with the management of the Nederlandsche Bank,
9-6-1925.
205
Archive DNB 8.2/2228/1 ,Visit by J.A. Kalff to the management of the Nederlandsche Bank, 12-6-1925; Idem,
various reports sent the the acceptance banks to be used in their talks with German government officials.
206
Archive DNB 8.2/2228/1, Letter by the Internationale Bank to the management of the Nederlandsche Bank,
15-6-1925.
135
Jeroen Euwe 3
forthcoming in their credits to Germany.207 In the press, the matter also received
detailed attention, and not all of it positive. While in the national press much was
made of the injustice done to the Dutch, in the economic press at least one
publication, the Kroniek van Dr. A. Sternheim, was decidedly negative about the
steps of Vissering and Heldring. ‘What will await us’, the Kroniek wrote, ‘if private
persons are allowed to take charge of our foreign affairs without deliberation and
without responsibility, and misappropriate their position to promote certain
interests. Even if the Nederlandsche Bank means well, her attitude cannot be
tolerated.’208 According to the German Consul-General in Amsterdam prince
Hatzfeldt, the interests behind these actions were those of Dutch transport, more
specifically, of the sea ports and Dutch shipping companies. Hatzfeldt reported to
the German Foreign Office that according to his confidential source, the whole affair
was part of a campaign by Rotterdam and Amsterdam shipping companies. Hatzfeldt
– incorrectly – further reported that Foreign Minister Van Karnebeek had authorized
Vissering’s action. As to why also the German import tariffs were being targeted, the
Consul declared that this was done so that the campaign would seem to be in the
general Dutch economic interest.209 Still, in his opinion the Dutch feelings towards
Germany had worsened to a point that there was a real chance they would follow
through on their threat.210
Meanwhile, Reichsbank president Schacht choose to deal with the situation
by making a threat of his own. In a discussion with G.W.J. Bruins – who as
commissioner for banknote issuance kept an eye on the policy of the Reichsbank –
Schacht stated that the Dutch measures were simply ‘not done’, whatever the
conflict. The German railways had been privatized because of the Dawes-plan, and,
Schacht added, while the Entente had a lot of influence in the new company, the
German government actually had very little. Schacht boasted that Germany was in
fact not the weaker party: the total amount of acceptances in use by the acceptance
207
BArch R 3101/2741, Report by Hatzfeldt of the German Generalkonsulat Amsterdam to the German foreign
office, 19-6-1925.
208
De Kroniek van Dr. A. Sternheim. Halfmaandelijksch tijdschrift voor economie – financiën – statistiek bedrijfshuishoudkunde, 1 Juli 1925.
209
BArch R 3101/2741 fol. 313-317, Confidential report by Prinz Hatzfeldt of the Deutsches Generalkonsulat in
Amsterdam to the German Foreign Office, 19-6-1925.
210
BArch R 3101/2741 fol.344-345, Confidential report by Prinz Hatzfeldt of the Deutsches Generalkonsulat in
Amsterdam to the German Foreign Office, 3-7-1925.
136
Jeroen Euwe 3
banks was less than the worth of the Reichsbank’s portfolio of guilder bills. If the
Dutch were to follow through on their threat, Schacht would use this portfolio to
pay off the outstanding loans, and would then transfer all financial dealings to
London. He would also urge industrialists such as Otto Wolff and Thyssen to close
their accounts in the Netherlands. Bruins countered by saying that these
acceptances were only a small part of the total credit the Dutch had granted the
Germans, and that overall, the Dutch were a creditor, which Schacht did not deny.211
Schacht also made it very clear, that the Dutch were not only doing very well out of
financing German trade and industry, but that they were also financing their own
exports, and any anti-German action would therefore also hit their exports. The
same point was made by the interest groups speaking on behalf of the German
North Sea ports.212
Vissering was invited to visit Berlin, and between 10 and 16 August he met
both formally and informally with Reichskanzler Luther, Reich minster of Economics
Albert Neuhaus, Foreign Minster Stresemann, Reichsbankpräsident Schacht and
other influential Germans. The report he wrote after his visit makes clear that – at
least by now – there was no chance that Berlin would give in to his demands. But
then again, the whole affair had only started out of a general feeling that the Dutch
deserved better treatment. The bill portfolio that had initially sparked off the
conflict was relegated to the background because Schacht – despite the attempts of
Vissering to discuss the matters separately – continued to imply that the issues were
interrelated.213 Upon his return to Amsterdam, Vissering decided to let that matter
rest until after an agreement had been reached on the other issues.214 In future,
Vissering tried to influence matters through the German press. Most of the press in
the parts of Germany along the Rhine was pro-Dutch. Either through his own articles
or by articles written by German friends, Vissering made sure to be heard in
Germany.
211
Archive DNB 8/1501/2, Visit by Schacht to Bruins, 18-6-1925.
BArch R 3101/2741 fol.319, 320, Norddeutscher Lloyd, Bremen, Generaldirektor Stimming to
Reichswirtschaftsminister Neuhaus, Berlin, 25-6-1925.
213
Archive DNB 1.121/245/1, Informal letter Vissering to Bruins, 21-08-1925.
214
Archive DNB 8/1501/2, Letter by Vissering to Max Warburg, 21-8-1925.
212
137
Jeroen Euwe 3
Vissering’s failure made him cautious when in later years he was urged to act
similarly. By now, it had become obvious that Amsterdam’s financial market was of
great importance, and whenever it was thought that Dutch interests were being
harmed, there was a call to use this position to force the Germans to make
concessions. Throughout 1927, such a debate raged in the business press.215
Whereas Vissering had learned from his mistake, Heldring had not. In a letter
explicating the damage done by the German Seehafenausnahmetarife, Heldring
concluded that Germany was consistently putting the Netherlands at a
disadvantage. He therefore urged the Nederlandsche Bank to bring this to the
attention of the Dutch bankers.216 Vissering answered the same day that it would
not be appropriate for the Central Bank to get involved, and told Heldring to
approach the government instead.217 Even in 1930, in the Bank’s Commission of
Advice – which consisted of prominent businessmen – there were once again
questions why the Dutch banks still financed German business, while Germany
continued to make exports to that country ever more difficult. Why not take
retaliatory measures?218
Because of the many problems with the Germans, in 1930, the Foreign
Minster instituted a sub-committee for Germany as part of the already existing
Commissie voor de herziening van handelsverdragen – Committee for the revision of
trade agreements. Its members were prominent bankers, the chairman of the
Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the director of the Dutch railways,
politicians and representatives of the various relevant state departments. At its first
meeting on 29 September 1930, the liberal politician Rudolf Patijn argued that ‘we
are the fourth creditor country in the world. However, because of a lack of
collaboration between the banks we are unable to make use of this. Our money
market could be the only weapon we have with which something may be gained.
The necessary collaboration is, however, not quickly established and in this instance
this weapon is of no use.’ In March of the next year, Patijn’s remarks were recalled.
215
Archive DNB 8/1501/2, Report by Mr.D.Crena de Iongh about foreign emissions in Amsterdam, November
1930.
216
Archive DNB 8/1501/2, Letter by E. Heldring, in his capacity of chairman of the Chamber of Commerce and
Industry of Amsterdam, to Vissering, 27 March 1928.
217
Archive DNB 8/1501/2, Answer by Vissering to Heldring’s letter of 27 March 1928, dated 27 March 1928.
218
Commissie van Advies, Meeting 25 Juli 1930, Remark by C. Sleeswijk.
138
Jeroen Euwe 3
Treasurer General A. van Doorninck argued that the Dutch banks should cooperate
to make Patijn’s plan a reality, whereupon J.A. Nederbragt, chief of the Directorate
Economic Affairs of the Foreign Ministry, replied that the Dutch mentality might
make the cooperation between banks and the government unattainable. V. G. G. M.
Dubois, director of the Centrale Coöperatieve Boerenleenbank – a precursor of the
Rabo bank –, proposed nevertheless to point out to Germany that the Dutch role as
creditor might come to an end because of its trade policy, but was quickly called to
order. Nederbragt, who had long experience in negotiating with the Germans,
replied ‘Germany is too well informed of the situation in this country, it is therefore
of no use to threaten with something that is not yet feasible.’ 219 Even Nederbragt,
who as chief negotiator for the trade agreement of 1925 had first-hand experience
of the failure of Vissering’s attempt to use the Dutch position as creditor to Germany
as leverage, thus remained convinced that, if only it were done right, the Dutch
ascendency in the financial relations between the Netherlands and Germany might
be used as a bargaining tool. In fact, this was only the case with the credit that was
supplied to German industry as part of the Coal and Credit Treaty of 1920, as will be
related in the next chapter.
219
Archief DNB, 2.3/3055/1; Commissie voor de herziening van handelsverdragen, subcommissie voor Duitsland.
Meeting of the sub-committee for Germany, 9 March 1931.
139
Jeroen Euwe 3
3.10
Conclusion
Due to temporary circumstances, after the World War I, Amsterdam was able to
expand and consolidate its newly attained position as an international financial
centre, and would be the most important international financial centre of
continental Europe during the period 1919-1931. As a result of increasing monetary
instability in Europe both during and immediately after the war, large amounts of
flight capital from central European countries had found a safe haven in Amsterdam.
In its wake, no less than 67 foreign, mostly German banks were founded in the
Netherlands in almost all cases as legally Dutch firms. That these banks chose to
settle in the Netherlands is not surprising. German banks no longer had access to
London – which prior to the war had financed most of its international trade – and
were therefore in need of a neutral financial centre. The Netherlands was a favoured
choice, not only due to its stable monetary system, its favourable tax laws as well as
its banking secrecy and good location, but also because of the significant economic
ties that existed between the Netherlands and Germany. The Netherlands was,
together with its colonies, an important trading partner to Germany, and Germany
was, together with Great Britain, the most important trading partner to the Dutch. It
is therefore not surprising that these strong economic ties would be apparent in all
aspects of the financial market.
On the capital market, between 1926 and 1928 39.5 per cent of all foreign
emissions were of German origin, most of which were emissions of German
industrial companies. In their efforts to help German economic recovery, the Dutch
government not only granted a ƒ 200 million credit with the Coal and Credit Treaty of
1920, but also actively promoted the Dawes loan and decided against banning
foreign emissions from the Amsterdam capital market. A far more telling illustration
of the economic bonds between both countries however, can be found in the money
market. Here, 67 per cent of all short-term loans to German debtors were from
Dutch banks and companies to German industry, trade and agriculture. Whereas the
structure of its financial services clearly demonstrates the Dutch-German economic
interdependence, the extent of this interdependence is shown by the sheer scale of
the Dutch credits to Germany: the Dutch were by far the most important creditor to
German trade, industry and agriculture, far outstripping even the Americans. In
140
Jeroen Euwe 3
overall volume of short-term loans, the Dutch were second only to the United
States.
The acceptance market – a part of the money market that by its very nature
was geared to financing trade – is a good example of how Dutch finance helped
German foreign trade to the betterment of the Dutch economy. Of all credit granted
on the acceptance market, 75 per cent was to German debtors, predominantly by
Dutch banks. The development of this market is a good indicator for both the extent
of the financial ties between the two countries, and of the policy of the
Nederlandsche Bank. Although the German banks were welcomed by the Dutch
banking sector, the new banks were not granted the same privileges their Dutch
counterparts enjoyed, mainly because the Dutch worried that the Germans would
overpower and thereby weaken the Dutch financial market. As the competition from
other centres grew, the German banks were gradually granted the same privileges.
This increasing competition from other centres also led to a relaxation of the
regulations with regards to the acceptance market as a whole, without the ill effects
feared by the Dutch central bank. For, although the German banks had a significant
share of the burgeoning acceptance market, Dutch banks would retain their lead in
this market and in the granting of short-term credit to Germany.
Overall, the policy of the Nederlandsche Bank can be characterized as
focussed on a stable growth of the acceptance market – and the financial market as
a whole – while promoting Dutch economic interests as much as possible. Within the
goals the Nederlandsche Bank had set itself, its policy can therefore be judged to
have been successful. Its policy regarding the German loans during the war and the
extension of these loans after the German defeat shows that – although its main
concern always was the stable development of the financial market – the
Netherlands Bank was aware both of the importance of a German economic
recovery and how the Dutch money market could both profit from, as well as help
such a recovery.
Given the structure and volume of Dutch credit to Germany and the policies
of the Dutch government as well as the Nederlandsche Bank, it can be concluded
that the Dutch used the Amsterdam financial market to actively promote German
economic activity that was of benefit to the Dutch economy. It is therefore not
141
Jeroen Euwe 3
entirely unexpected, that they should assume they might also use it to protect the
Dutch economy from unwelcome German activity. Yet, in spite of the great
importance of Dutch financial services to the German economy, the Dutch were
unable to translate this position into political leverage. For the most part, this was
because, until 1925, the Dutch had not felt the need to do so. By the time they did,
when first Germany’s transport policy and then its trade policy became damaging to
Dutch interests, they were too late. By 1925, the great flow of foreign capital
towards Germany had started. Although Amsterdam would remain the main
financial centre to German trade and the German export industry, it was no longer
the only one. If it had to, Germany could turn to London and New York, both of
which were eager to fulfil the same role.
142
Jeroen Euwe 4
Chapter 4 – Dutch-German trade relations
4.1
Introduction
National economies interact by way of trade. Given the many factors influencing
trade, such as technical progress in transport or production processes, trade policies,
economic crises, exchange rate fluctuations, war, and a great many other factors,
any analysis of trade relations needs to take a broader view than just the period
under review, or just trade relations by themselves. Not only the trade relations
themselves, their extent and nature, require study, but also the way trade patterns
shift in response to crises. Crises were plentiful during the second half of the
nineteenth century, and would continue to be so during the beginning of the
twentieth century. Germany’s political unification had been accompanied by wars,
culminating in the Prussian-French War of 1870-1871 and the subsequent
proclamation of the German Empire. In the summer of 1914 both countries would
once again be at each other’s throats, this time with so many other belligerents and
at such an enormous scale that in retrospect it came to be dubbed the First World
War, but to this date also continues to be known by one of its first given names: the
Great War. The time in between these two wars – from 1871 to 1914 – was
interspersed with political, military, and economic crises, each threatening the
development of stable trade relationships. During the period from the end of the
First World War until the moment Germany sank into an economic abyss in 1931,
even though Germany was no longer a military power, the situation was not much
different.
During these years, trade relations between the Netherlands and Germany
took over half a decade to normalize, only to be threatened by German
protectionism a year later. As a result, political relations between the two countries
ran the gamut from friendly to antagonistic. To gain some understanding of the way
the war impacted on trade relations between the Netherlands and Germany, it is
necessary to first review how these modern trade relations had developed.
143
Jeroen Euwe 4
4.2
Dutch-German trade relations up to the First World War
From the late 1850s the Dutch economy underwent a rather slow but definite
change towards industrialization. As the output of the Dutch economy changed, one
would naturally expect this to be reflected in both the extent, as well as the nature
of Dutch trade. However, due to the notoriously unreliable Dutch trade statistics of
the time, the trade flows are difficult to analyze. The problems with the Dutch
Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer – Statistics of Imports, Exports and Transit
Traffic – are many, and affect all possible aspects of trade.1 Especially for a country
whose economy was dependent on trade to an unprecedented degree, this failure to
account for the nature and geographical spread of its trade is inexplicable. All the
more so since by the end of the nineteenth century the Dutch Central Bureau for
Statistics (CBS) was well aware of its failings and how this had consequences for their
analysis of Dutch trade. Already in the 1880s it tried to remedy the situation, but due
to political problems, it would take until 1917 before Dutch trade statistics were
modernized.2 Although the development of Dutch trade during the nineteenth
century until 1913 has been recalculated as part of the project ‘Reconstruction of
the National Accounts of the Netherlands’, just as deflators, no reliable data on trade
flows of specific product or from and to individual countries exist.3
The development of Dutch international trade
Between 1850 and 1913, Dutch exports – in 1913 prices – rose from 106 million
guilders to 1428 guilders, as imports grew from 151 million to 1950 million guilders
(Table 4.1). However, this was no linear development. The initial fast growth during
the 1860s was primarily due to the adoption of free trade. By the mid-1870s this
growth smoothed off as Dutch internal demand rose, and Dutch industry –
1
See: Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 135. Auswärtiger Handel de deutschen
Zollgebiets im Jahre 1900. 1. Theil, Der Verkehr mit den einzelnen Ländern im Jahre 1900 (Berlin 1901),
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 271 (1913) XII.1-2; J.Th. Lindblad and J.L. van
Zanden, `De buitenlandse handel van Nederland, 1872-1913.' Economisch- en sociaal-historisch jaarboek, 52
(1989) 231-269; ; Dirk Pilat, Dutch Agricultural Export Performance, 1846-1926 (Groningen 1988).
2
CBS, Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer. Inleiding behoorende bij de Jaarstatistiek over 1917 (The Hague
1918).
3
J.P. Smits, E. Horlings and J.L. van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its components, 1800-1913 (Groningen 2000); CBS,
Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen (Voorburg 2001).
144
Jeroen Euwe 4
characterized by a focus on consumer products and low productivity – was unable to
increase production. In the 1890s, Dutch industry was undergoing a second wave of
modernization, expanding into metalworking industry, engineering and chemical
industry.4 The Dutch were still slow to adapt to technological innovation, however,
and productivity remained low. Because this was offset by low internal price levels
compared to those of its main trading partners, Dutch trade saw a new period of
rapid expansion. This ended abruptly with the outbreak of the First World War.
Table 4.1: Development of Dutch foreign trade and GDP, 1850-1913. In millions 1913
guilders. Index 1913=100.
Year
1850
1870
1890
1913
In millions 1913 guilders
Imports
151
628
787
1950
Exports
106
689
830
1428
Index 1913=100
GDP
447
904
1104
2414
Imports
100
416
521
1291
Exports
100
650
783
1347
GDP
100
202
247
540
Source: J.P. Smits, E. Horlings and J.L. van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its components, 1800-1913 (Groningen 2000);
CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen (Voorburg 2001); Own calculations.
Determining the geographical spread of Dutch international trade is hindered by the
way export and imports were registered. In imports by sea, the port where the ship
had been loaded determined the country of origin. Only in case of imports over land
or by inland shipping, the actual country of origin was registered. The destination for
exports by sea was given as the country were the goods were unloaded, while the
destination for goods sent inland was the neighbouring country, i.e. Germany or
Belgium. Therefore – given that only the figures for import from Belgium and
Germany can be considered to be somewhat reliable – the conclusion can be drawn
that on the eve of the First World War, Germany was by far the most important
supplier to the Netherlands (Table 4.2).
4
Hein A.M. Klemann, German-Dutch monetary relations (unpublished manuscript); Jan Pieter Smits,
‘Economische ontwikkeling, 1800-1995.’ In: Ronald van der Bie en Pit Dehing (red.) Nationaal goed. Feiten en
cijfers over onze samenleving, (ca.)1800-1999 (Voorburg 1999) 15-36, here 20.
145
Jeroen Euwe 4
Table 4.2: The geographical spread of Dutch foreign trade, 1899-1913.
Imports
German Reich*
Great Britain
U.S.A.
Dutch East-Indies
Belgium
1900
20
15
14
14
11
1913
29
9
11
14
9
Exports
1900
54
23
4
4
10
1913
47
21
4
5
11
Imports
1900
100
100
100
100
100
1913
145
60
79
100
71
Exports
1900
100
100
100
100
100
1913
87
91
100
125
110
Sources: Departement van Financiën, Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer over het jaar 1900 (The Hague
1901-1913); own calculations.
* Hamburg, Bremen, Lübeck, Mecklenburg and Oldenburg were recorded separately from Prussia.
With regards to Dutch exports, the data are even more unreliable. Considering
Europe’s geography at the time – Germany’s eastern neighbours consisted of Russia
and Austria-Hungary –, as well as the relatively high cost of rail freight versus sea
freight, and the fact that transit traffic through Germany by inland shipping would
ultimately have to be trans-shipped from barge to railroads, it is likely that an
important part of exports to both Russia and Austria-Hungary would have been sent
by sea. This notion is reinforced by Nikolaus Wolf’s conclusion that ‘the arrival of
railway connections between east and west did probably not fundamentally change
[the] east-west pattern of the German economy for grain or other bulky
commodities’ – in other words, traffic between the eastern and western parts of the
Reich remained underdeveloped.5 Given the high share of exports that were
attributed to Germany, it is not unreasonable to claim that Germany was the main
Dutch export market.6 With regards to the volume and relative decline of exports to
Germany, both in all probability caused by slight improvements in Dutch statistics, it
is impossible to draw any conclusions from these data.
German international trade
German foreign trade underwent an important shift during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth century. While the total volume of trade was – especially in the last
5
Nikolaus Wolf, ‘Was Germany ever united? Evidence from Intra- and International Trade, 1885-1933.’ Journal of
Economic History 69 (3), September 2009, 846-881, here 853-854
6
Departement van Financiën, Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer over het jaar 1900 (The Hague 1901);
Departement van Financiën, Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer over het jaar 1913 (The Hague 1914).
146
Jeroen Euwe 4
decade before the war – increasing at a high rate, imports from Europe were steadily
decreasing in favour of especially the Americas (Table 4.3).7 Within European trade,
Great Britain and Austria-Hungary almost halved in relative importance, although
Germany and Great Britain remained each other’s best market.8 German exports
remained focussed on Europe, which accounted for three-quarters of all German
exports, although again trade with Great Britain declined in importance, in this case
mostly in favour of France and Russia.
Table 4.3: German foreign trade to certain countries, 1890-1913. In percentages of
the total German trade.
Great Britain
Belgium
Netherlands
France
Russia
Austria-Hungary
Europe
1890
15
7
7
6
13
14
76
Imports*
1900
14
4
4
5
13
12
63
1913
8
3
3
5
13
8
55
1890
21
4
8
7
6
10
78
Exports
1900
19
5
8
6
7
11
78
1913
14
5
7
8
9
11
76
Source: Statistisches Bundesamt (ed.), Bevölkerung und Wirtschaft, 1872-1972 (Stuttgart 1972) 199, 201.
* In 1892, the German statistical office amended the definition for country of origin. Until then, the country of
origin for staple goods such as raw cotton, petroleum and ores had been the country where these goods were
bought, not the country where these had last been processed or originated. This change impacted especially the
Netherlands and Belgium, where transit traffic had thus far often been registered as trade. See: Statistisches
Reichsamt, Statisitk des deutschen Reichs, Band 135 XII, 4.
Dutch-German trade
To a large degree, the enormous growth of the Dutch-German trade relations in the
second half of the nineteenth century were a consequence of the development of
the Rhenish-Westphalian coal-based industry. German industry found a buyer of its
(semi)manufactured products in the developing Dutch industry, and Dutch
agriculture – which due to its specialization had become export-oriented – and
related industries exported their products to the growing population of RhenishWestphalia – the greater Ruhr area. A German study from 1901 entitled ‘The
Netherlands and its German hinterland in their mutual trade’ recognizes the German
7
Statistisches Bundesamt (ed.), Bevölkerung und Wirtschaft, 1872-1972 (Stuttgart 1972) 199.
Henry Cord Meyer, ‘German Economic Relations with Southeastern Europe, 1870-1914.’ The American
Historical Review, Vol.57, No.1 (Oct., 1951) 77-90, here 83.
8
147
Jeroen Euwe 4
hinterland as West-Germany, more specifically the Prussian Rhine province and
Westphalia.9
This process is most aptly illustrated by the German export of coal. In 1873,
the total tonnage of German exports to the Netherlands was 2375 tonnes, 60 per
cent of which consisted of coal. Twenty years later, this volume had risen to 6420
tonnes, while the share of coal had grown to 70 per cent. As the Dutch infrastructure
improved, the cheaper German coal displaced the British coal: in 1860 about half of
Dutch coal imports came from Germany, by 1890 this was over 80 per cent, and in
1913 almost 90 per cent. For the most part, this coal came from the Ruhr area. The
importance of the Dutch market was significant: in 1865, of the total coal production
in the Ruhr, 10 per cent was destined for the Netherlands, twenty years later this
was 12.5 per cent.10 By 1913 Dutch households and industry absorbed over 16 per
cent of all German coal exports.11 By then, British coal was only in use as bunker coal
for ships in Dutch ports.12 In other areas as well, Germany became more and more
important as a supplier of the Dutch, at the expense of Great Britain and the United
States.13
Dutch exports to Germany increased as well. During the second half of the
nineteenth century these exports shifted from mainly colonial products to a more
diverse group of products, consisting of dairy products, vegetables and other
perishable goods. These were mostly sold in Western Germany, specifically the
Prussian Rhine Province and the province of Westphalia.14 Here, in the extended
Ruhr area that included parts of both provinces, the fast growing employment in
industry caused the population to expand to a point were German production no
longer sufficed to feed them. In fact, the need for workers was even such, that the
traditional flow of German workers to the Netherlands reversed, and a rising number
9
Peter Stubmann, Holland und sein deutsches Hinterland in ihrem gegenseitigen Warenverkehr, mit besonderer
Berücksichtigung der holländischen Haupthäfen, seit der Mitte des 19.Jahrhunderts. Eine handelsstatistische
Studie (Jena 1901).
10
André Beening, Onder de vleugels van de adelaar. De Duitse buitenlandse politiek ten aanzien van Nederland in
de periode 1890-1914 (PhD-thesis Amsterdam 1994) 116; .P.H. Nusteling, De Rijnvaart in het tijdperk van stoom
en steenkool, 1831-1914 (Amsterdam 1974) 274-276.
11
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 317, 5; Own calculations.
12
Beening, Onder de vleugels van de adelaar, 116.
13
Departement van Financiën, Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer over het jaar 1900-1913 (The Hague 19011914); Own calculations; André Beening, Onder de vleugels van de adelaar, 117.
14
Stubmann, Holland und sein deutsches Hinterland, 20-22.
148
Jeroen Euwe 4
of Dutchmen from the border region now found employment in German factories.15
As Ross Hoffman concluded in his 1933 study ‘Great Britain and the German Trade
Rivalry’: ‘Holland became, indeed, virtually an integral part of the German economic
community.’16 However, did this German-Dutch virtual economic community survive
the Great War and its after-effects?
15
Beening, Onder de vleugels van de adelaar, 116-117.
Ross J.S. Hoffman, Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry, 1875-1914 (Philadelphia 1933) 118, quoted in:
Marc Frey, Der Erste Weltkrieg und die Niederlande: ein Neutrales Land im politischen und wirtschaftlichen Kalkül
der Kriegsgegner (Berlin 1998) 55. At the turn of the century, arguments were still being made for and against
the desirability and possibility of the incorporation of the Netherlands in the German customs union. See:
Stubmann, Holland un sein deutsches Hinterland, 122-130.
16
149
Jeroen Euwe 4
4.3
The First World War and its immediate aftermath: 1914-1920
‘The geographical position of the Netherlands automatically requires highly
important ties to be shared with Germany – now and in the future. To artificially
sever all ties with the hinterland is an impossibility, which no one can force us to do’,
wrote the Dutch newspaper Algemeen Handelsblad in its morning edition on 19
October 1918, at the tail-end of the war.17 Yet this was exactly what the Allies had
been trying to accomplish for years. Right from the beginning of the war, the
belligerents demanded guarantees from their neutral trading partners that none of
the goods traded with these states would ultimately end up in the inimical camp.
Given that so much of Dutch trade consisted of processing traffic, this by itself led to
a greatly diminished trade. International trade was not only hindered by the fact that
former trading partners had become enemies. The decline of trade also was a
consequence of the collapse of the gold standard – the monetary system that had
stabilized exchangfe rates since the 1870s –, a credit crunch of hitherto unknown
dimensions and the ever increasing difficulty in shipping as a consequence of
warfare and blockades. As the war went on shipping freights became ever higher.
The decreased supplies of raw materials and food caused by the waning
imports and exports, forced the Dutch authorities to interventions in the form of
market regulation, while on the other hand causing the government to work in close
cooperation with the business community to ensure the continuation of
international trade.18 This cooperation was the result of Allied attempts to deny
Germany as much as possible its international trade, causing pressure on neutral
countries such as the Netherlands not to export to the Central Powers. For although
according to international law, neutral countries could not be forbidden to exchange
goods with either one of the warring sides, both the Entente and the Central Powers
had plenty of leverage. The Dutch government thus found itself in a difficult position,
because trade with both sides in the conflict was essential to its economy.
17
‘Een edelmoedig aanbod.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 19-10-1918.
As has been noted in the chapter 2, the historiography on the Netherlands during World War I is extensive.
With regards to the development of trade during this period, the situation is less positive. The most
comprehensive overview of trade and policy is given in a recent PhD-thesis by Samuel Kruizinga, Economische
Politiek. De Nederlandsche Overzee Trustmaatschappij (1914-1919) en de Eerste Wereldoorlog (Thesis
Amsterdam 2011).
18
150
Jeroen Euwe 4
In order to limit political liability, a private company, the Nederlandsche
Overzee Trustmaatschappij – Netherlands Overseas Trust Company (NOT) – was
established by a group of leading merchants and bankers.19 This company would
import goods from overseas to the Netherlands, to guarantee the British that these
goods would not be sold to the Central Powers. This was something the Dutch
government could not do for political reasons. As this would be contrary to the
responsibilities of a neutral power. The NOT negotiated with the British as well a as
with the Germans, granted export licences and allocated shipping. As a result, a
substantial and essential part of Dutch foreign policy was turned over to the
business community. Imports were, however, of crucial importance to the Dutch,
and it is here that especially Germany would bring its power to bear.
German coal was essential for both industry and households; German iron
and steel was of great importance to Dutch industry, especially the fast-growing
shipbuilding industry. The matrerials that came from Germany, only were delivered
against payment in foodstuffs or raw materials. Yet, the British demanded that any
deliveries to the Central Powers be matched by deliveries to the Allies. Furthermore,
they did their utmost best to hinder trade with the Germans, resorting even to
bureaucratic tactics such as denying access to Allied countries to businessmen whose
passports that indicated they had been to one of the Central Powers. Dutch
businessmen therefore had two passports, one for each side in the conflict. 20
Notweithstanding such tricks, it was impossible to optimse Dutch trade with any of
the belligerents, and trade with neutral countries steadily declined as well, as sea
shipping became increasingly difficult, dangerous and expensive.
How trade relations changed, and how trade diminished, is on the basis of
available statistics impossible to determine. Reliable data are only available from
1917, when Dutch trade statistics were completely revised. They indicate, that in
spite of the stipulations by the Allies, Germany remained the most important trading
partner of the Country (Table 4.4).
19
Kruizinga, Economische Politiek, 1.
Gemeentearchief Rotterdam, toegangsnummer 72.10: Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken te Rotterdam,
1803-1921, inv.nr, 152, reg.nr. 7: Ruilpassen Letter KvK, 6 Sept. 1915; Gemeentearchief Rotterdam,
toegangsnummer 72.10: Chamber of Commerce and Industry Rotterdam, 1803-1921, inv.nr, 152, reg.nr. 7:
Ruilpassen Letter to the Governor of the Queen South-Holland, 18 Oct. 1919.
20
151
Jeroen Euwe 4
Table 4.4: Dutch trade by country, in percentages of total Dutch imports and exports. Period
1917-1920.
Germany
Year
1917
1918
1919
1920
I
25
52
15
27
E
39
40
41
24
Great Britain
I
20
8
21
17
E
25
19
15
19
France
I
Belgium
E
0
1
2
2
I
3
3
3
4
United States
E
2
2
8
10
8
5
12
11
I
E
21
4
19
16
5
4
4
5
Source: CBS, Zeventig jaren statistiek in tijdreeksen: 1899-1969 (The Hague 1970); Own calculations.
During the war, the Netherlands came under severe pressure. Especially Germany –
since the end of the nineteenth century the most important supplier of essential
goods such as coal, steel, and fertilizers –, used the Dutch dependence on imports
for what amounted to political blackmail.21 When in August 1918 it became clear
that a German defeat was inevitable, this attitude changed. The Dutch shift towards
autarky was recognized as a danger to post-war exports, as was the effect of
changing market positions. A good example of this was the Dutch market for butter
barrels, which had been dominated by German manufacturers for thirty years. 22
During the war, this position had been lost to the Danish, who could manufacture
more cheaply. As early as August 1918, the German manufacturers tried to reclaim
the important Dutch market: the Verband der Deutschen Fassfabriken – Organisation
of German Barrel Factories – declared it would be willing to reimburse the price
difference with the Danish barrels, ‘so it could already reconquer the market during
the war’.23 When during the first week of October 1918 the former Dutch minister of
War, Hendrik Colijn, travelled to England to negotiate the delivery of steel to Dutch
shipyards, a call for immediate action came from the highest levels in Germany.24
This was despite earlier doubts whether Britain would be able to deliver enough
steel, and whether it might not be a Dutch negotiating ploy, designed to make the
21
Klemann, German-Dutch monetary relations, 14.
To be more precise, this was the market for the wood for barrels. The highly specialized nature of this wood
and the logistics of shipping the product make it likely that the barrels were delivered as half-finished products,
that needed to be assembled. It explains why correspondence is alternately with the Verband der Deutschen
Faßfabriken and Faßholzfabriken.
23
Barch R 3101/43 fol.10-11 Verband der Deutschen Faßfabriken GmbH to the Zentral-Einkaufsgesellschaft,
Berlin. 28 Aug 1918.
24
Barch R 3101/2736 fol.2-4. Chef des Admiralstabes der Marine to the Staatssekretär des Auswärtigen Amtes,
e.a.. Berlin, 10-10-1918
22
152
Jeroen Euwe 4
Germans lower their prices. Germany expected payment in foodstuffs, and in the
Netherlands, food riots were expected for next winter.25 In his diary, the influential
Dutch businessman Ernst Heldring wrote at the time: ‘the situation amongst the
workers is pitiful, there is serious weakening because of malnutrition, no clothes, no
money. We are living on a volcano.’26
During the war, the Dutch food imports had steadily decreased: the imports
of wheat, rye, oats, corn and barley had declined from 5244 tonnes in 1913 to 52
tonnes in 1918.27 On the other hand, it had become clear to Berlin that the Dutch
could easily obtain goods for which they were hitherto dependent on Germany from
the United States, Great Britain or Sweden. On 23 October, the German Foreign
Office therefore informed the Reich Office of Economic Affairs, the State Secretary of
War, and the Reich Commissioner for Export and Import Permits, that the time had
come to make sure that the German industry kept its strong position on the Dutch
market.28 That same day, at a meeting where not just German state officials, but also
representatives from Thyssen and Krupp – the two most important German iron and
steel companies – were present, a decision was taken to grant the Dutch favourable
conditions for the new trade agreement.29 Yet, in spite of such efforts to secure its
traditional markets, Germany continued to play its suppliers against each other. A
good example can be found in the case of vegetable seeds, for which both the
Netherlands and Denmark were important suppliers. By the end of October,
Denmark had already released 310 tonnes of the 1918 harvest for export and
offered another 425 tonnes. If Germany were to accept the offer, the Dutch would
have no market. It motivated the Dutch minister for agriculture to respond by
25
Barch R 3101/2736 fol.89-90. Marineattaché Müller to the Chief des Admiralstabes der Marine, Den Haag, 610-1918
26
Ernst Heldring, Herinneringen en dagboek van Ernst Heldring (1871-1954) Uitgegeven door Dr. Joh. De Vries.
Eerste deel (Groningen 1970) 249-250, entry for Saturday, 19 October 1918.
27
E.C. van Dorp, ‘Handel en nijverheid.’ In: H. Brugmans, ed., Nederland in den Oorlogstijd. De geschiedenis van
Nederland en van Nederlandsch-Indië tijdens den oorlog van 1914 tot 1919, voor zoover zij met dien oorlog
verband houdt (Amsterdam 1920) 191-250, here 216.
28
Barch R 3101/43 fol.116, Auswärtiges Amt to the Reichswirtschaftsamt, Kriegsamt, Reichskommissar für Ausund Einfuhrbewilligung, Admiralstab and Reichsmarineamt, Berlin, 23-10-1918.
29
BArch R 3101/43 fol.124-126, Notes on a meeting in the Abteilung für Aus- und Einfuhr des Kriegsamtes Berlin
on the supply of ship building material to the Netherlands, 23 October 1918.
153
Jeroen Euwe 4
releasing its vegetable seeds for export far earlier than would otherwise have been
the case.30
The Dutch economy also – out of necessity – followed the wartime trend of
increased autarky. Its production was now also geared towards basic industries such
as coal and steel – although it would take some years before the steel production
would actually take off –, and was aimed more at the home market. Nevertheless, in
December 1920, G.W.J. Bruins commented: ‘During the war, the production for the
home market in this country has increased. On the whole, however, due to the
specific structure of its industry, its trade policy, and its limited home market, the
Netherlands remains among those countries whose industrial production is
insufficient to cover domestic demand.’31
Sources: Smits J.P. Smits, E. Horlings and J.L. van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its components, 1800-1913 (Groningen
2000); van der Bie, ‘Een doorlopende groote roes’: de economische ontwikkeling van Nederland, 1913-1921
(Amsterdam 1995) 103; CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen (Voorburg 2001).
30
Barch R 3101/62 fol.197, Gneist of the Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, The Hague 25-10-1918 to the
Auswärtigen Amtes Berlin.
31
Algemeen Handelsblad, Woensdag 29-12-1920.
154
Jeroen Euwe 4
In fact, although world trade had declined to some 65 per cent of the pre-war level,
Dutch competitiveness on the world market had increased considerably, causing the
Netherlands’ share in world trade to grow to circa 20 per cent over its 1913 level.32
Partly, this was due to the fact that Dutch industry had invested heavily during the
war, and would continue to do so after the war’s end.33 Labour productivity in
industry – which, in contrast to the labour productivity of the entire economy had
been low in the Netherlands before 1914 – had increased, and would continue to
increase in comparison with that in the surrounding countries.34 Since the 1890s,
Dutch competitiveness on the world market had been strengthened by a low
internal price level, a situation that the country managed to uphold until the collapse
of the international gold standard in 1931. Then, the decision to keep the guilder
pegged to the gold standard caused rekative Dutch price levels in comparison with
countries that abandoned the Gold Standard to increase greatly.35 Nevertheless, the
larger Dutch share in world trade was an increase in a much reduced volume of
trade, and even during the brief post-war period of 1919-1920, when world trade
made a brief spurt to a feverishly high level, international trade would not regain the
level of importance to the Dutch economy it once had (Graph 4.1). On the other
hand, in contrast to the decades before the war, economic growth during the period
1921-1929 was exports-led.36 This helps to explain why the Dutch were loath to give
up their policy of free trade as during the 1920s the world around them instituted
increasingly protectionist measures.
The changing structure of German foreign trade
32
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 310 I, 3; Klemann, German-Dutch monetary
relations; Smits, ‘Economische ontwikkeling.’ 15-36, here 17; Ronald van der Bie, ‘Een doorlopende groote roes’:
de economische ontwikkeling van Nederland, 1913-1921 (Amsterdam 1995) 103; J.L. van Zanden, Een klein land
in de 20e eeuw: economische geschiedenis van Nederland 1914-1995 (Utrecht 1997) 154.
33
H.J. de Jong, De Nederlandse industrie 1913-1965. Een vergelijkende analyse op basis van de
productiestatistieken (Amsterdam 1999) 192-193, 206-207; Klemann, ‘Dutch-German monetary relations’, 14.
34
Klemann, ‘Dutch-German monetary relations’ 14; Hein A.M. Klemann, ´Ontwikkeling door isolement. De
Nederlandse economie 1914-1918.’ In: Martin Kraaijestein en Paul Schulten (red.), Wankel evenwicht. Neutraal
Nederland en de Eerste Wereldoorlog (Soesterberg 2007) 271-309; Herman J. de Jong, Prices, Real Value Added
and Productivity in Dutch Manufacturing, 1921-1960, Research Memorandum 549 (GD-4) (Groningen 1993) 2324, 31 Appendix 3.
35
Klemann, ‘Dutch-German monetary relations’.
36
CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek; Own calculations based on the periods 1890-1913, 1900-1913, and 19211929.
155
Jeroen Euwe 4
Not just the Dutch, the German international trade also collapsed during the war,
but while elsewhere trade saw a brief but immediate resurgence, the continuing
Allied blockade of Germany meant that it remained isolated from everywhere but
some neutral countries. Even this trade, however, was impeded. Naturally, the
transit traffic through the neutral countries to the former Central Powers was
stopped by the Allies, so that the blockade would not be circumvented. With
German trade now entirely dependent upon the neutral countries, it seems
remarkable that Dutch exports to Germany remained limited to 40 per cent of total
Dutch exports – although undoubtedly smuggling was rampant. German exports
were also blocked. Until the beginning of December 1918 – just a month after the
armistice – Dutch products containing 5 per cent of German added value – either in
raw materials or labour – could be exported to allied countries again. From then on,
German exports to neutral states were halted completely, as even this was no longer
allowed.37 The situation was short-lived, however, as in early 1919 companies not on
the British blacklist were once again allowed to export products containing no more
than 5 per cent German raw materials or German labour, and limited supplies of
food were allowed to be imported into Germany.38
With the signing of the Treaty of Versailles on 12 July 1919, the blockades
were lifted. After signing the treaty, Germany not only was committed to pay
extensive reparations both in money and in kind, but also to hand over almost 90 per
cent of its merchant fleet, all its colonies and considerable territories in the east,
west, and north. This had direct consequences for the German economy. Its
industrial base diminished due to the loss of important industries in the east to the
new state of Poland, but its natural resources in coal and ores were affected even
more. In coal, this could be compensated by an increased production elsewhere in
Germany, especially in the Ruhr area, were the population boomed as production
was increased. Because part of the reparations payments were done in coal
deliveries, by 1922 Germany nonetheless had to import 7.5 million tonnes of coal
37
BArch R 3101/2736 fol.8, Telegram Handelsabteilung bei der Gesandschaft, The Hague , to the Auswärtiges
Amt Berlin, 4-12-1918.
38
BArch R 3101/2736 fol.24-26, Letter Handelsattaché Gneist to the Firm E.T. Gleitsmann, Dresden, 14 March
1919.
156
Jeroen Euwe 4
whereas in 1913 it had exported 24 million tonnes.39 However, the situation was
only temporary, as the quick ramping up of production after the end of the Ruhr
crisis of 1923 would soon see an export surplus of coal.
The loss of considerable tracts of agricultural lands meant that production of
potatoes, wheat and rye diminished with 15 per cent or more. Given that the
reduction in population as a result of the shrinking German territory was 10 per cent,
this meant that post-war Germany was much more dependent upon the imports of
foodstuffs than it had been before the war. The changes in German territory thus
brought significant changes in foreign trade. Whereas in 1913, foodstuffs had
accounted for just over 28 per cent of imports, by 1925 this had increased to over 42
per cent (Table 4.5). Exports of foodstuffs declined from 10 per cent in 1913 to 7 per
cent in 1925. This shift would persist throughout the 1920s and early 1930s.
Table 4.5: The structure of German imports and exports. 1913, 1925, 1928 and 1931. In
percentages of total exports and imports.
1913
I
Foodstuffs
Materials/semi-finished
Finished goods
28
58
14
1925
E
10
26
63
I
1928
E
42
48
10
7
23
70
I
1931
E
41
46
13
6
24
69
I
E
41
44
14
5
21
74
Source: Deutsche Bundesbank, Deutsches Geld- und Bankwesen in Zahlen 1876-1975 (Frankfurt am Main 1976)
324; Own calculations.
During the early 1920s the impoverishment of Germany also led to changes in its
foreign trade. Its imports of both foodstuffs and raw materials shifted towards
cheaper goods. While the value of imports was relatively lower, the actual volume
decreased much less. In foodstuffs, the shift was from luxury products towards
fulfilling primary needs. Within these primary needs, imports were now of lower
quality: the import of butter – an important Dutch export product – all but
disappeared. Instead the import of margarine increased substantially.40 Due to the
demand of the home market, exports of foodstuffs declined. In the imports of raw
39
40
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 310 I, 3.
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 310 I, 9.
157
Jeroen Euwe 4
materials, the same shift towards cheaper materials occurred: American cotton, for
instance, was replaced by the cheaper and inferior Egyptian product.41
Changing German trade relations
Germany’s trade relations also changed as a result of the outcome of the war. Before
the war, German trade had been firmly oriented on Europe. This would not change
much. Almost 55 per cent of the German imports and over three quarters of the
German exports went there in 1913, and in 1928 this was respectively 51 and 75 per
cent (Table 4.6). Within this European trade however, there were dramatic changes.
To the east, new states – Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Estonia,
Latvia, and Lithuania – had been formed, partly out of former German or Austrian,
partly out of Russian territories. Given the longstanding supply lines, this
disintegration hardly had a negative impact on trade. Exports to the region even
increased significantly. Before the war, trade with the countries in Central and
Eastern Europe had accounted for some 14 per cent of Germany’s imports and circa
10 per cent of its exports. By 1925, this was about 13 per cent and 17 per cent
respectively.42 As far as trade was concerned, most of these new countries were in a
dependent position vis-à-vis Germany, since the trade with Germany was much
more important to their economies than it was to the German economy. Their
dependence would increas when the 1920s drew to a close. With a share in German
exports of 5.2 and 3.8 per cent in 1925, only Czechoslovakia and Poland were of
some importance as an export market.
In its trade relations with most of the rest of Europe and with the United
States, Germany had declined in importance. In the case of Scandinavia, where it
had been the prime supplier and second-largest market, or Central Europe, where it
had been both the most important buyer and market, this position was reclaimed
within two or three years after Germany’s monetary stabilization. In southern
Europe, it would take a few years longer to return to the pre-war situation.
41
Idem, Band 310 I, 3.
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich; Own calculations. In these calculations
Central and Eastern Europe consists of Russia, Romania and Bulgaria prior to the war, and these same countries
plus Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania after the war.
42
158
Jeroen Euwe 4
Germany’s most important trade relations, however, had always been with Western
Europe. It had supplied its western neighbours – including Great Britain – with 15 per
cent of their imports and been the destination for almost 20 per cent of WestEuropean exports. This made Germany the second-largest supplier to Great Britain,
France, and Belgium, and put it in respectively second, third and first position as a
market to these countries. By 1925, these numbers had dwindled to 6 and 10 per
cent respectively. Germany was now a supplier of relatively minor importance, while
as a destination for British, French, and Belgian exports it was in a third position. Yet,
to Germany the trade with Western Europe remained much more important, and
showed much more continuity. In 1913, 20 per cent of the German imports and over
34 per cent of its exports were the result of trade with Western Europe. In 1925, 21
per cent of imports were from there, while exports had declined to 27 per cent. A
year later however, exports – especially those to Western Europe – showed a strong
resurgence and – at 32 per cent – almost reached their pre-war level of importance –
but not the pre-war volume. The one country, with which trade saw a remarkable
continuity, and where, with the monetary stabilization of Germany at the end of
1923, these relations immediately became more important than they had ever been
before the war, was the Netherlands.43
Changing Dutch-German trade relations
Dutch-German trade relations emerged from the war even stronger than they had
been before, such becomes clear from the shift in trade relations compared to the
years prior to the war. In 1925 – the first relatively stable post-war year for the
German economy – German imports and exports in 1913 prices, were respectivally
at 65 and 84 per cent of the final pre-war year. In 1913, the Netherlands had
accounted for just 3 per cent of German imports whereas by 1925 this share had
grown to 6 per cent (Table 4.8). German exports to its neighbour had grown from 7
to 11 per cent, and showed a number of interesting shifts in composition. The share
43
For an overview of Germany’s position in the foreign trade of its trading partners, as well as the raw data for
the quoted percentages, see: Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Band 310 I, 16; Idem, Band
329, 18-20; Idem, Band 366, 14-17. Own calculations.
159
Jeroen Euwe 4
of foodstuffs in Dutch imports from Germany remained the same at 9.3 per cent of
the total German exports – both the total of German exports of foodstuffs as well as
Dutch imports of these products had halved – while imports of the foodstuffs from
the Netherlands had doubled. Partly because of the loss of parts of its agricultural
regions, Germany was thus exporting less and importing more foodstuffs and
beverages.
In German exports of manufactured goods, raw materials and semimanufactured goods, the importance of the Netherlands as a market had increased
considerably. The export of finished goods had increased by 75 per cent, that of raw
materials and semi-finished goods by 88 per cent. The comparison becomes
interesting, when the average value of these imports is considered. In Dutch exports,
the unit value of foodstuffs, raw materials and semi-manufactured goods had more
than doubled, while that of manufactured goods had gone up by 40 per cent. The
unit value of German manufactured goods came close, but the same cannot be said
of foodstuffs (average increase just 17.5 per cent), nor of raw materials and semimanufactured products, whose unit value had increased by only a third. Dutch
exports were thus of a considerably higher value and/or quality than had previously
been the case.44 Clearly, during the war, the changes in Dutch industry extended
beyond increased productivity; they had also led to a qualitatively better product.
This also indicates that Germany did not produce enough foodstuffs and
semi-manufactured goods of sufficient quality to satisfy domestic demand. The
dependence of the Dutch on their exports to Germany was thus accompanied by a
German dependence on these imports from its neighbour that was much greater
than it had been before the war.
44
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 330, I.1; Own calculations.
160
Jeroen Euwe 4
Table 4.6: German international trade by continent and country, 1913, 1923-1931.
1913
Great Britain
France
Belgium*
Netherlands
Denmark
Italy
Switzerland
Europe
U.S.A.
Americas
Netherlands East
Indies
Asia
Africa
Australia and
Polynesia
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
I
8.1
5.4
3.2
3.1
1.8
3.0
2.0
54.7
15.9
27.8
E
14.2
7.8
5.5
6.9
2.8
3.9
5.3
76.0
7.1
15.3
I
16.5
3.0
0.9
3.3
1.3
2.4
2.0
55.0
19.1
28.1
E
9.1
1.1
1.7
11.2
5.3
4.0
5.7
74.3
7.8
14.3
I
9.1
7.6
1.8
4.7
2.9
4.1
2.9
55.3
18.8
28.2
E
9.3
1.7
1.4
9.9
4.4
3.6
5.7
72.6
7.5
16.8
I
7.6
4.5
3.0
6.0
2.6
4.0
2.7
52.8
17.8
28.3
E
10.6
2.2
2.4
11.3
4.0
3.6
4.9
72.7
6.9
16.2
I
5.8
3.8
3.4
5.4
2.9
3.9
2.2
51.0
16.0
30.1
E
11.2
6.0
4.2
10.8
3.6
4.6
4.1
72.2
7.1
15.5
I
6.8
4.3
6.8
4.9
2.4
3.7
2.4
53.2
14.6
29.9
E
10.9
4.4
4.1
10.4
3.5
4.3
3.8
73.9
7.2
15.2
I
6.4
5.3
3.4
5.1
2.6
3.3
2.3
51.1
14.4
29.4
E
9.8
5.8
4.1
9.8
3.6
4.5
4.8
74.8
6.6
14.6
I
6.4
4.8
3.3
5.2
2.8
3.3
2.4
52.6
13.3
27.6
E
9.7
6.9
4.5
10.1
3.6
4.5
4.7
73.6
7.4
15.5
I
6.1
5.0
3.1
5.4
2.9
3.5
2.5
56.0
12.6
24.5
E
10.1
9.5
5.0
10.0
4.0
4.0
5.2
77.1
5.7
12.6
I
6.7
5.1
3.3
5.7
2.7
4.0
2.4
55.9
11.8
23.8
E
11.8
8.7
4.8
9.9
3.9
3.6
5.6
81.0
5.1
9.9
2.1
1.0
3.0
1.1
2.7
1.0
3.0
1.2
3.1
1.3
2.9
1.3
2.8
1.3
2.7
1.4
2.5
1.1
2.4
0.8
9.7
4.6
5.4
2.1
9.2
4.3
7.6
1.9
9.3
4.2
7.8
2.2
12.1
4.2
8.3
2.3
11.5
4.4
8.9
2.4
9.9
4.3
7.6
2.4
11.8
5.1
7.7
2.3
11.9
5.1
7.7
2.3
11.7
5.1
6.7
2.2
12.4
5.1
6.7
1.9
3.0
1.0
3.4
0.2
3.0
0.4
2.6
0.5
3.2
0.7
2.6
0.8
2.6
0.6
2.6
0.7
2.3
0.5
2.1
0.4
Sources: Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt/Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 317, 329 351 I and 366 I; Own calculations.
* From 1926 on, Luxembourg was included with Belgium in German trade statistics.
162
Jeroen Euwe 4
Table 4.7: Dutch imports and export by country, in percentages of total imports and exports, 1918-1931.
Year
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
Imports
28.6
30.0
24.8
24.4
24.2
27.3
25.6
27.2
30.4
31.6
32.7
Germany
Exports Total
18.3 24.7
13.7 23.8
14.3 20.7
29.3 26.4
26.0 25.0
21.8 25.0
24.5 25.2
23.5 25.6
22.5 27.1
20.8 27.1
19.2 27.2
Great Britain
Imports Exports Total
14.0
25.8 18.5
16.1
25.0 19.4
15.4
28.0 20.4
12.9
24.5 17.8
16.0
25.9 20.2
9.5
27.6 17.1
9.9
24.2 16.0
9.6
22.0 14.9
9.5
20.2 14.0
10.7
22.0 15.4
8.4
24.1 14.9
Belgium & Luxembourg
Imports Exports
Total
10.1
12.4
11.0
9.4
14.3
11.3
10.9
10.8
10.9
10.8
9.1
10.1
11.2
9.2
10.4
11.2
8.3
10.0
10.6
8.3
9.6
11.2
8.7
10.2
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.7
11.3
10.9
10.4
13.2
11.6
Source: CBS, Zeventig jaren statistiek in tijdreeksen: 1899-1969 (The Hague 1970); Own calculations.
163
Imports
2.9
2.8
3.4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.9
4.5
4.1
4.4
4.0
France
Exports
6.1
9.3
9.6
6.7
4.7
4.7
6.8
6.2
5.8
7.9
8.8
Total
4.1
5.3
5.9
5.3
4.5
4.7
5.7
5.2
4.8
5.9
6.0
United States
Imports Exports Total
17.3
3.4
12.0
13.3
5.0
10.2
12.7
5.3
9.8
11.5
3.4
8.1
11.2
3.9
8.1
10.6
4.6
8.1
10.5
3.4
7.5
9.9
3.5
7.2
9.8
3.5
7.2
8.7
2.8
6.3
7.8
2.6
5.7
Jeroen Euwe 4
Table 4.8: Composition of the Dutch share in German trade, 1913- 1931 in percent of the
total German foreign trade.
Exports
Foodstuffs
Materials/semi-finished
Manufactured goods
Total
1913
9
10
6
7
1925
9
18
10
11
1929
12
11
10
10
Imports
1931
7
13
10
10
1913
7
2
2
3
1925
14
2
2
6
1929
12
2
4
5
1931
12
2
5
6
Source: Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt/Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 330 I, 1;
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich (Berlin 1932) 214-217; Own calculations.
The greatly increased importance of the Netherlands as a market for German
products meant that – in 1913 prices – the German exports to its neighbour
recovered remarkably fast. By 1923, they were already at over 85 per cent of the
level of 1913, while German exports as a whole were at just 53 per cent.45 As a result
of the occupation of the Ruhr by French and Belgian forces, and the German strike
that followed, that year exports were even some 8 per cent lower than they had
been in 1922. Unfortunately, prior to 1923, there are no reliable data on the
destination of German exports. However, Dutch statistics do show that in that year
imports from Germany reached a post-war low (Table 4.9). It can therefore be
concluded, that German exports to the Netherlands recovered faster than those to
any other country. Partly, this can be attributed to the strong Dutch guilder. Due to
the ongoing depreciation of the Mark, Germany could export at prices that the home
industry in other countries could not compete with. Whereas most other countries in
Europe also experienced monetary difficulties, lessening the extent of Germany’s
advantage, the Dutch bore the brunt of its depreciation-induced competition. At
least equally important were the greater demand for raw materials from the
expanded Dutch industry, and the demand for goods from the relatively affluent
Dutch citizenry. Imports from Germany increased steadily until the onset of the
depression, especially because of the demand. Until 1925, the Netherlands was
45
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 351, 5; Idem, Band 317, 6, 10; Own calculations.
164
Jeroen Euwe 4
Germany’s most important export market, a distinction that after that year was to
be alternately shared with Great Britain (table 4.6).46
The position of the Netherlands as supplier to Germany changed as well.
Whereas in 1913, the Netherlands had been the sixth most important European
supplier to Germany – ninth overall –, by 1923 it was in a fourth position and in
1929, the Netherlands was only surpassed by Great Britain and the United States as
Germany’s most important supplier.47 The Dutch fourth place in 1923 in German
imports was mostly the result of the disintegration of Central and Eastern Europe
into smaller states. Its share in German imports was only 0.2 per cent higher than it
had been before the war. As soon as the German depreciation and inflation were
halted, this would change. In 1924, German imports increased 40 per cent over the
previous year, but its imports from the Netherlands more than doubled (Table 4.6).
The year marks a turning point in Dutch exports to Germany.
As trade with Germany increased, Dutch trade with its other main trading
partner, Great Britain, declined. Britain had returned to the gold standard in 1925,
but had done so at pre-war parity. Its exports were therefore relatively expensive,
which expressed itself in a declining export to the Netherlands. The void that was left
by the decline of imports from Britain was filled mostly with more imports from
Germany, increasing the already substantial Dutch trade deficit with that country. To
protect their home market, the British adopted a restrictive trade policy. As a result,
after 1926, Dutch exports to the country declined, albeit that the decline was less
severe than that of imports. This turned the usual almost even trade balance with
Britain into a substantial surplus that would continue to exist until after 1931. For
most of the 1920s, Dutch trade relations with its two main economic partners were
thus characterized by a considerable structural trade deficit in trade with Germany,
and a substantial surplus in trade with Great Britain. Overall, the Dutch trade balance
had a structural deficit throughout the period.
46
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistisches Jahrbuch für das Deutsche Reich (Berlin 1926), VII. Auswärtiger Handel,
19. Anteil der Herstellungs- und Bestimmungsländer.
47
Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistik des deutschen Reichs, Band 351, I.15.
165
Jeroen Euwe 4
Table 4.9: Dutch foreign trade by country, 1921-1931. In million of guilders and 1921 prices.
Great
Germany
France
Belgium
USA
Total
Britain
Year
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
E
I
1921
649
254
318
357
65
85 229
172
392
47 2500
1922
745
209
441
438
77
164 257
251
365
88 2738
1923
610
236
415
535
92
183 295
206
343
100 2701
1924
677
607
393
574
128
157 327
212
348
80 3037
1925
695
571
508
646
138
117 356
229
356
98 3163
1926
836
496
318
716
155
123 375
216
354
119 3353
1927
829
619
345
679
170
192 370
233
367
96 3496
1928
921
621
353
643
165
181 411
256
362
102 3659
1929 1107
796
364
592
157
169 396
302
377
103 3833
1930 1100
695
392
591
161
213 390
303
318
76 3655
1931 1093
457
294
594
140
217 364
326
272
64 3486
E
1385
1754
1906
2341
2495
2593
2806
2929
2922
2687
2463
Bron: CBS, Zeventig jaren statistiek in tijdreeksen: 1899-1969 (The Hague 1970); CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen,
1921-1939 en 1969-1985. Een vergelijking op basis van herziene gegevens voor het interbellum (The Hague 1987) 63-64, 67-68;
Own calculations.
The nature of Dutch-German trade
For the most part, Dutch exports to its eastern neighbour consisted of foodstuffs.
This had been so before the war as well, but as after the war the balance in German
imports shifted towards foodstuffs, Dutch exports profited (Tables 4.5, 4.8).
However, they did so only once the German economic recovery in 1924 began (Table
4.9). Prior to that, Dutch products had been too expensive because of the strong
guilder, which explains the interest of the Dutch government in helping the German
state to finance imports of foodstuffs from the Netherlands at that time.
Furthermore, on balance the Dutch export of foodstuffs consisted to a large degree
of luxury products such as butter, cheese, fish et cetera, for which there was no
market in Germany during the first post-war years (Table 4.10). Thus, during the
German crisis, only those products for which substitution was difficult, such as
cheese, or which were part of the basic diet, such as vegetables, still found a – albeit
much reduced – market in Germany.
166
Jeroen Euwe 4
Table 4.10: The share of different foodstuffs in Dutch exports to Germany, 1913 and 19231930.
Year
Butter
Cheese
1913
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
12.7
1.0
12.3
15.0
18.9
15.5
17.0
16.2
14.9
6.5
5.1
9.2
9.0
10.3
6.4
8.2
8.8
9.6
Eggs
Vegetables
Fish & Fish
products
9.7
5.7
6.3
12.0
12.4
11.3
12.5
11.4
11.8
8.9
1.6
3.9
3.2
3.9
3.0
3.1
3.5
4.0
2.9
0.0
3.4
7.5
10.0
10.4
10.6
11.7
12.3
Meat &
products
All
foodstuffs
6.8
1.8
3.3
8.0
7.0
6.6
4.7
4.9
3.4
56.0
58.1
63.7
75.5
75.4
67.1
65.2
65.6
64.4
Source: Alfred Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen (PhD-thesis Köln 1933) 27-38; Own calculations.
As German imports started to rise, the share of foodstuffs increased even more.
Dutch exports profited, and in Dutch exports to Germany – which rose from 236
million guilders – 1921 price level – in 1923 to 607 million the following year – the
share of foodstuffs increased from 58 to 64 per cent (Tables 4.9, 4.10). By 1926, over
three quarters of Dutch exports consisted of foodstuffs. Even though in real terms, in
1925 and especially during the German crisis of 1926, Dutch exports were lower than
they had been in 1924. The volume of Dutch exports of foodstuffs thus remained
much more stable.
Within the group of foodstuffs, products like butter, cheese, eggs and
vegetables were much more important than they had been before the war (Table
4.10). Imports of Dutch meat and related products initially seemed to gain in
importance as well, but after 1925, their share steadily declined in both relative and
absolute terms. Fish was the one group of foodstuffs that would never recover from
the impact of the war. In 1913, 9 per cent of Dutch exports to Germany consisted of
fish: Dutch fisheries had provided for 23 per cent of German fish imports. After 1924,
exports had decreased to less than 4 per cent, which was equivalent to just over 16
per cent of German fish imports.48 Compared to 1913, however, the total Dutch
fishery remained fairly constant.49 During the war, Norway had crowded out Dutch
48
49
Alfred Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen (PhD-thesis Köln 1933) 37.
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Wirtschaft des Auslandes 1900-1927 (Berlin 1928) 137
167
Jeroen Euwe 4
fish in Germany. Germany nevertheless remained a significant market to Dutch
fisheries. During the second half of the 1920s, over 60 per cent of Dutch herring was
sold in Germany.50
Apart from Norway, other Scandinavian countries became formidable
competitors in other areas as well. The Danish agricultural sector had developed
quite similar to the Dutch, and thus offered much the same products. Denmark
conquered a significant share of the German market for butter, cheese, and eggs.
Butter was the single most important Dutch export product. In 1913, the Dutch
market share on the German market for butter had been 36 per cent, but by 1925
this had decreased to 30 per cent while the Danish market share was 37 per cent.51
As total German butter imports had increased considerably, and would continue to
do so until the end of 1929, this was not an immediate threat. However, the Danes
managed to stabilize their market share at over 34 per cent in 1930, while the Dutch
share shrank to just over 22 per cent. That same year butter imports started to
decline, and two years later they had halved.52 Partly, this was because of German
protectionism, which raised prices and limited imports. However, given the easy
substitution of butter by the much cheaper margarine or lard, and the severity of the
German crisis, it is likely that German butter imports would have fallen anyway. The
Danes also competed for a share of the German market for cheese and eggs. Here,
however, the Dutch held a much stronger position, which they managed to retain.
From 1925 to 1931, the share of Dutch hard cheeses in German imports grew from
60 to 70 per cent, while during that period the share of Dutch eggs rose from 20 to
34 per cent.53 The Danish market share for both products declined from 8 to around
7 per cent.
Food crops such as vegetables and fruits comprise a wide variety of products,
and a wide variety of prices. German production did not suffice to fulfil the local
demand, and between 1926 and 1931 imports of vegetables was 30 to 34 per cent of
the inland production.54 Many of these imported products did not directly compete
50
Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 37.
Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 27. H.J. van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel
und die deutsche Agrareinfuhr in den Jahren 1920-1940 (Mainz 1953) 129, Own calculations.
52
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, 129; Own calculations.
53
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, 135; Own calculations.
54
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, 71, Own calculations.
51
168
Jeroen Euwe 4
with similar products. Germany’s own vegetable production was mainly Red, White,
and Savoy cabbage, asparagus, beans, peas, cucumbers, carrots, and onions,
whereas the most important imports were cauliflower – circa 20 per cent of all
vegetable imports –, tomatoes – 15 to 30 per cent –, onions – 12-20 per cent –,
cucumbers – 14-17 per cent –, head cabbage – 13 per cent –, lettuce, and spinach.
Throughout the period, the Netherlands supplied about half of Germany’s vegetable
imports, while Italy’s share was between 19 and 29 per cent. Together, they
furnished 65 to 75 per cent of Germany’s vegetable imports. Imports from France –
4.5 to 13.5 per cent – and Belgium – 1.5 to 3.5 per cent – were more or less
negligible.55
Unlike dairy products, many vegetables are seasonal products. This means,
that the competition for market shares is not just defined by price and quality. For
many products it is also defined by harvest times. Thus, although the exports of the
Netherlands and France to a large degree overlapped in kind – cauliflower,
tomatoes, lettuce, spinach –, both countries delivered at different times. Most
French deliveries were in February through May, the Dutch delivered mostly in June,
July and August. Competition with Italy was limited not by seasonal circumstances,
but by geography. The Italians supplied most of southern Germany – Munich alone
absorbed 40 to 50 per cent of Italian vegetable exports –, Saxony, and Berlin. The
Dutch and French, on the other hand, both delivered about half of their vegetable
exports to the Ruhr area and the Rhine province. The rest of the Dutch exports were
destined for north-western Germany and Berlin – each circa 16 per cent –, while the
rest of French exports found a market in south-western Germany – 20-30 per cent –,
Bavaria – 4-6 per cent –, and Berlin. In the south of Germany, French and Italian
vegetables were in direct competition. The export of Dutch vegetables was governed
by German demand, which explains the almost constant Dutch market share of 48 to
51 per cent in German vegetable imports.56
The 35 to 25 per cent of German imports from the Netherlands that did not consist
of foodstuffs, consisted of a wide variety of (semi-finished) products and materials,
55
56
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, 71-72.
Ibidem 71-73.
169
Jeroen Euwe 4
such as cotton yarn, skins and hides, ironmongery (hardware), and machinery, each
of which represented less than one per cent of Dutch exports. Even many of these
products were in fact the result of a form of agriculture, and although their
importance in Dutch exports as a whole might not have been substantial, to their
respective fields many of these relatively small-scale exports were still important.
For instance, the Dutch as good as monopolized the German market for flower
bulbs, where prices were considerably higher than in the Netherlands.57
Table 4.11: The share of important products in German exports to the Netherlands, 1913,
1923-1930.
Raw materials
Finished goods
Year
Total
Coal
1913
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
14.8
4.2
4.9
12.3
18.6
12.0
9.5
8.1
9.3
Fertilizers*
1.8
3.6
1.1
3.0
2.5
4.1
3.9
2.6
1.4
Ironmongery
15.5
11.9
13.7
16.2
15.6
16.6
17.9
19.1
17.9
Textiles
Machinery
12.2
22.5
20.6
14.2
13.4
13.8
14.8
14.4
15.5
6.0
6.8
7.2
6.9
6.6
7.5
8.6
9.6
10.8
Paper &
products
2.6
5.8
5.5
4.4
4.1
4.5
4.1
3.8
4.0
52.8
54.7
52.9
57.1
60.8
58.5
58.7
57.7
58.8
Source: Alfred Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen (diss. Köln, Emsdetten 1933) 39-51; Own
calculations.
* Potash and ammonium sulphate.
In contrast to the nature of Dutch exports to Germany, Dutch imports from its
eastern neighbour consisted mostly of finished goods and raw materials (Table 4.11).
German hardware, machines and textiles found a good market in the Netherlands,
while coal was essential to keep Dutch industries working and Dutch households
warm. In fact, the post-war shortage of coal had been one of the driving forces
behind the Dutch willingness to furnish the German state with a credit of 200 million
guilders in 1920. Before the war, the Dutch share in German coal exports had been
declining. In 1885 the Dutch bought almost 33 per cent of all German coal exports,
57
Ibidem 109
170
Jeroen Euwe 4
by 1913 this had diminished to just over 19 per cent. In 1923 and 1924, the Dutch
share in German coal exports had tripled – 65 and 58 per cent respectively. This was,
however, because its coal exports had dwindled. Obviously, the 1920 treaty worked
as far as ensuring coal supplies was concerned. As soon as German coal exports
increased, the Dutch share diminished to some 25-27 per cent. During the second
half of the 1920s, German coal accounted for circa 65 per cent of Dutch import
needs. The remainder came for the most part from Great Britain.
Many of the other changes in the German exports to the Netherlands expressed
changes in the Dutch economic structure, such as the continued growth of intensive
agriculture and horticulture. The increased use of fertilizers in Dutch agriculture
translated into greater imports of potash and ammonium sulphate. Before the war,
Germany had a monopoly on potash. Now that France had taken possession of
Alsace-Lorraine, France had also started to export potash to the Netherlands.
However, Germany remained the main Dutch supplier of fertilizers.58 The increased
mechanization in Dutch industry caused a greater demand for German machinery
(Table 4.11). The six product categories mentioned in table 4.11 comprised some 60
per cent of German exports to the Netherlands. The remaining products, such as
cotton, copper, porcelain, bicycles, cars, musical instruments, oats, et cetera, all
were of relatively minor importance.
58
Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 42.
171
Jeroen Euwe 4
4.4
Dutch-German political relations
As of January 1925, the clause in the Versailles treaty concerning the automatic
granting of most-favoured-nation status to the Allied countries expired. From then
on, Germany was able to formulate its own trade policy agian. Initially, this trade
policy would be greatly influenced by the need for an active trade balance in order
to be able to pay for reparations. This led to the institution of considerable higher
tariffs than those in the old trade agreement of 1851 – which had last been
amended in 1902 –, and long and rather strained negotiations between the Dutch
and the German governments.59 On top of that with the onset of the agrarian crisis
in Germany in 1927, a successful lobby by the agricultural sector led first to higher
tariffs on agricultural products, and then to the introduction of import quota. This
caused increasing Dutch opposition, and as the German industry saw its Dutch
market threatened, also brought about an active counter-lobby by German trade
and industrial organisations. Where at the beginning of the decade, the Dutch public
opinion was predominantly pro-German in the sense that the public was convinced
of the need for a quick German economic recovery, by the end of the decade the
Dutch were actively boycotting German products.
Before 1925, relations had been good, although not entirely without conflict.
These were mostly due to the German transport policy, and the regulation of
imports and exports in response to the inflation and the depreciation of its currency.
Although, in The Hague government circles the necessity of these German measures
was well understood, Dutch public opinion became increasingly critical of Germany’s
policy of regulation. Until the middle of the 1920s, the Netherlands were of great
importance to Germany as a conduit for much of its imports and exports, the
financing thereof, and even as a political ally in matters concerning Germany’s access
to international loans for economic reconstruction, its position in the Rhine
Commission, and in the readmission of Germany in international politics. In DutchGerman political relations, the Dutch had the ascendancy. As the German Imperial
[sic] legation in the Hague noted in March 1919 in a report to the German Foreign
Office: ‘The German export industry and German foreign trade will therefore be for a
59
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Memorandum on the German tariffs by the trade
department of the Dutch legation in Berlin. Undated (autumn 1924).
172
Jeroen Euwe 4
great part dependent on the intermediary from neutral foreign countries. As a
consequence of its geographical position and a number of other reasons Holland will
probably obtain a first position among these countries.’60 The author, Legation
Councillor Ago (Adolf Georg Otto) Freiherr von Maltzan, saw this role as more than
that of a mere facilitator of trade. On Dutch neutral ground, German traders would
soon be able to rebuild their old relations with their English and American colleagues
and friends and, as Maltzan put it, ‘ the relations from human being to human being
will, although only slowly, contribute to clear the atmosphere of hate and outlawry
created by the war and inimical propaganda. The future consequences of such a
development on our political position in the world, does not need any further
explanation.’61
Dutch ascendancy
Indeed, during the early 1920s, the Dutch took a leading role in diverse attempts to
fortify the German economic recovery. The efforts of the Dutch bankers G.M.
Vissering and C.E. ter Meulen to stop the monetary problems that plagued most of
Europe, so that international trade would be able to recover, and the Dutch efforts
to secure reconstruction loans to Germany and France, all came to naught. One
important achievement, however, was the Coal and Credit Treaty of 1920. Of course,
the treaty had come about primarily out of economic self-interest: most of the
output of the Dutch agricultural sector was highly perishable and there were hardly
any substitutes for the West-German market, while the Dutch also were in dire need
of coal. There was, however, also an aspect of idealistic motives. During the
blockade, the idea of starving Germans just across the border – and the frightening
aspect of the spread of communism to the Netherlands – had moved the Dutch
public.62 Nevertheless, the treaty was not established easily. For different reasons,
Dutch stakeholders were either for or against the treaty. For the agricultural sector,
the importance of renewed exports to western Germany was obvious. The Dutch
60
BArch R 3101/180 fol.269-271 Report by the Kaiserlich Deutsche Gesandtschaft, The Hague to the Auswärtiges
Amt Berlin. 27-3-1919.
61
Idem.
62
Roowaan, Im Schatten, 91.
173
Jeroen Euwe 4
government wanted to promote the German economic recovery to secure its future
exports as well as to ensure political stability across its eastern border. Further it
needed coal so that its industry could keep working and its citizens could keep warm.
The 60 million guilder credit for food would be paid for through coal deliveries, and
as compensation for the renewable credit for raw materials to be used by German
export industries, the German government pledged to grant export permits for the
monthly deliveries of at least 90,000 tonnes of coal. Here, the interests of the Dutch
Steenkolen Handels Vereniging (SHV) – the Dutch outlet of the Rheinisch
Westfälischen Kohlensyndikat – and the Dutch government overlapped. The future
coal supply was of the utmost importance to the Dutch government, which therefore
supported the SHV in demanding special compensation in the case of exports from
the coalfields at Erkelenz, just across the Dutch-German border by the city of
Roermond. After long negotiations, the Germans agreed to grant export permits,
free of taxes, for half of the coal mined there, up to a maximum of 1.25 million
tonnes a year.
As much as Dutch industry relied on German coal, they still voiced their
objections to the treaty, arguing that the Dutch were now financing the German
competitors on the Dutch market.63 Furthermore, it was pointed out that the
German compensation did not amount to much: compared to the pre-war imports
of 7.2 million tonnes, 90,000 tonnes a month was irrelevant.64 Nevertheless, the
Treaty was ratified. When the European coal shortage ended far sooner than
expected, there was renewed criticism of the high price that was to be paid for the
German coal – basically the same price as that of American coal c.i.f. Rotterdam –,
and the obligation to accept deliveries in payment for the food credit.
In its intended role as assistance in the recovery of German industry, the
treaty was considered a success. The credit for raw materials, known after the
Treuhandverwaltung für das Deutsch-Niederländische Kredit-Abkommen (Tredefina),
the supervising Trust Organisation of the German-Dutch Credit Agreement, would
remain important to the German industry well after its intended end. The credit for
63
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: Kabinet en Protocol, nummer toegang
2.05.18, inventarisnummer 61 Letter by the Verbond van Nederlandsche Fabrikantenvereenigingen to the
Second Chamber of Parliament, 22 June 1920; Idem, explanatory memorandum to the aforementioned letter.
64
See: Roowaan, Im Schatten, 61; Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 39.
174
Jeroen Euwe 4
foodstuffs was less of a success, although this was no direct fault of anyone
concerned. The credit had been granted to the German state at a time when it
controlled the import of foodstuffs. Not too long after it had been put into effect,
Berlin abolished all import controls for food. Much of the German food imports were
now done by traders, and as a result the credit was used much less than had been
anticipated. In 1924, when everyone concerned had thought the credit would have
been used completely, it turned out that 22 million guilders of it was still unused. It
was then, that the ill-preparedness of the Dutch negotiators came to light. The
collateral for the credit had been the deliveries of coal. These however, ended by
December 1923. The credit, on the other hand, had a duration of ten years.65 When
the German government announced its desire to make use of the credit again, the
Dutch, much to their dismay, found they were now obligated to grant a credit
without there being any collateral. Although not obligated to do so, the Germans
agreed to provide this, and also catered to a limited extent to the Dutch wishes
regarding German transport policy (see chapter 5).66
The German competition on the Dutch home market that Dutch industry had feared
in 1920, only became stronger in 1921. The continuing depreciation of the Mark, and
the fact that this was only partly compensated by the German inflation, meant that
many Dutch products simply could no compete any longer on their home market. As
competition grew stronger, protests rose, calling for an end to German dumping
practices. Yet, as newspapers pointed out, the increased competition from German
products was everything but dumping. The term denotes the selling of goods abroad
below cost price, made possible by profits made on the home market. The Germans
were simply able to produce more cheaply, which, if anything, was an expression of
their economic problems.67
65
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Economische Zaken: Directie van Handel en Nijverheid, nummer
toegang 2.06.001, inventarisnummer 5849 Minutes of a meeting between representatives of the Dutch and
German governments, 5 September 1924.
66
NL-HaNA, EZ / Handel en Nijverheid, 2.06.001, inv.nr.5849, Letter by the Minister for Trade and Industry to the
Minister for Agriculture, 4 November 1924; NL-HaNA, EZ / Handel en Nijverheid, 2.06.001, inv.nr.5849,
Aufzeichnung über das Ergebnis der in der Zeit von 5. Bis 11. September 1924 im Haag geführten Verhandlungen
über Ergänzung des am 11. Mai 1920 geschlossenen Vertrages über Kredit und Steinkohlen.
67
‘Schetsen van Geld- en Fondsenmarkt.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 5 December 1920, Ochtend; Heldring,
Herinneringen en dagboek, 333.
175
Jeroen Euwe 4
Even though exports to Germany fell sharply, Dutch export-oriented industry
was relatively unaffected, as it focussed on other countries (Tables 4.6, 4.7). It was
the small-scale local industry, which focussed on the home market, that was
threatened in her existence by the cheap imports from especially Germany. This was
not helped by the worldwide economic crisis that had also set in. To try and find
solutions to these problems, in December 1921 a subcommittee of the
Staatscommissie voor de economische politiek – State Commission for Economic
Policy – was established. Its members, which included former Finance Minister
M.W.F. (Willem) Treub and President of the Netherlands Bank G.M. Vissering, were
instructed to determine which means were best suited to counteract the crisis. They
were to focus on the possible use of import bans with or without import duties, the
granting of export credits, or the granting of special privileges for Dutch companies
when competing for government contracts.68 After due deliberation, early in 1922
the subcommittee opposed higher import duties, but – conditionally – supported
import bans or restrictions and spoke out in favour of export credits.69 Such import
bans were only to be used if a branch of Dutch industry was threatened with ruin.
Even though the call for protection of at least some industries was becoming
stronger, and some political parties were starting to become divided on the issue,
the proponents of free trade prevailed. In part, this was because it was considered
wise to await the outcome of the Genoa Conference of April and May that year,
where it was hoped some headway would be made against the rising import duties
and import bans. The subcommittee’s recommendation to set up a scheme for
export credits did not interfere with such plans, and was instituted in June. 70
The Genoa Conference yielded no real results, and thus, the issue of import
bans reappeared on the political agenda. By the end of 1922, the import duties on
cigars were not just raised, but also changed to a minimum. The new system
specifically targeted German cigars, and did so successfully. The imports of cigars
had grown from 0.3 in 1921 to 2.1 million kilogrammes in 1922, of which 99 per cent
came from Germany. In 1923, imports had contracted to 0.4 million kilogrammes.
68
BArch R 3101/2738 fol.277 Lucius of the German Legation in The Hague to the Auswärtiges Amt Berlin, 24-121921.
69
BArch R 3101/2738 fol.397 Wochenbericht für die Niederlande. Period 18-24 February 1922.
70
P.A. Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek (Utrecht 1948) 61.
176
Jeroen Euwe 4
That year, when due to the occupation of the Ruhr and the now dazzling rate of
inflation in Germany the German exports shrank, the Dutch government instituted
import restrictions on shoes. Imports of shoes had shown a similar development as
those of cigars, but now the point had reached where protection of the Dutch shoe
industry had become necessary. The Minister for Labour, Trade and Industry, P.J.M.
(Piet) Aalberse of the Roomsch-Katholieke Staatspartij, a Catholic party with strong
electoral support in the south, where much employment was found in small-scale
industries producing for the Dutch market, thought it necessary to protect the shoe
industry, when so many others – e.g. the clothing industry – also had to endure
similar competition, because this industry was highly concentrated in one particular
region. Therefore, the social consequences within the industry were felt much more
deeply. Furthermore, the crisis in the shoe industry also hit suppliers, such as
tanneries. On 29 June 1923, the import restrictions took effect. For each pair of
imported footwear, distributors had to spend six times their price on buying
domestically produced pairs. Less than a year later, on 16 June 1924, after the
German currency had been stabilized, these measures were abolished.71
These instances of increased import duties and temporary import restrictions did not
signify a change in Dutch trade policy as a whole. Although the Catholic Party had
successfully defended the interests of its electorate – the shoe and cigar industries
were prevalent in the Catholic south –, the export-oriented industry and agriculture,
as well as others with interests in the free international movement of goods, such as
Dutch trade and shipping, were of such importance to the economy, that they
always found the government willing to defend their interests. Although The Hague
raised import duties, even the revision of Dutch trade policy in 1924 did not, in fact,
change Dutch policies. To generate income, and thus from a purely fiscal point of
view, since 1862 duties of 3 per cent on semi-finished goods and 5 per cent on
finished goods had been levied. This level was very low: the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty
that introduced free trade between France and Great Britain two years earlier, had
set French duties on British finished goods at 30 per cent. Furthermore, no limits
71
Ibidem 88-93; CBS, Jaarstatistiek van den In-, Uit- en doorvoer 1922-1925 (The Hague 1923-1926).
177
Jeroen Euwe 4
were set on the volume of imports for different kinds of goods. Dutch trade thus
truly was free trade.
That the Dutch raised duties on finished goods to 8 per cent, and for a few
goods higher, thus did not entail an end to free trade, but only limited it a little.
From the Dutch point of view, it was merely a fiscal measure, and a simplification of
the existing tariff, that at times had given cause for confusion and conflict. Under the
old system, the difference between wholly- or semi-manufactured goods, and thus
goods taxed at a higher or lower tariff, could at times be difficult to determine. If this
was the case, than now these were taxes at the higher level. In principle, the
measure was not directed at any particular country. Nonetheless, as Alfred Sauer
pointed out in his 1933 dissertation on German-Dutch trade relations, it ‘had to hit
especially Germany’.72 As related by Sauer – given the date of his dissertation,
possibly his assessment was somewhat coloured by the difficulties resulting from
German autarky and especially Dutch-German conflicts in clearing –, from the
German point of view, the new Dutch import duties were the result of protectionist
aspirations. In spite of this, Sauer noted, the German exports to the Netherlands
were hardly affected, since by 1930 the Dutch share in German exports had risen to
10 per cent.73
A new German trade policy
In the autumn of 1924, Germany started negotiations for a new trade agreement
with Belgium, France, and Great Britain. Being members of the Entente, these
countries would enjoy most favoured nation status until 10 January 1925. After that,
Germany could negotiate concessions from these countries in return for this status.
Naturally, it was expected that the status of other countries would change as well.
The Dutch legation in Berlin thought it prudent to find what repercussions a new
trade agreement might have for the Netherlands, and recommended soundings to
be taken with the German foreign ministry about the future of the Dutch status as
most favoured nation. According to the legation, it would be ‘very well possible,
72
73
Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 72; See also Table 4.7.
Ibidem 72-73.
178
Jeroen Euwe 4
that, in view of the favourable treatment Germany receives in our country, as well as
in the interest of good relations, on this point a reassuring assurance could be had
without, or at least without substantial, sacrifices on our part.’74 If The Hague could
secure the status of most favoured nation well in advance, the Netherlands could
await the coming revision of German tariffs with confidence. According to the Dutch
envoy in Berlin baron W.A.F. Gevers, it was as yet impossible to tell how much the
new tariffs would differ from the existing tariffs, as this was dependent upon
ongoing negotiations for trade agreements with Belgium, France and Great Britain,
as well as the German elections. The outcome of these elections would be especially
important for the height of tariffs on agricultural products. Given this uncertainty, it
was no use to try and negotiate specific tariffs for the Netherlands at this time. 75 In
its response to Gevers’ letter, the Department for Trade and Industry agreed that at
this time it would be fruitless to focus on specific tariffs, and that instead,
stakeholders should mobilise their German customers and get them to organize a
broad movement in support of low tariffs. Meanwhile, the Dutch department for
trade and industry thought it best to adopt a wait and see approach. Only once
Germany had signed trade agreements with Belgium, France, and Great Britain
would it become clear if, and if so how the Netherlands would be affected. 76
Naturally, this did not preclude Dutch preparations for the negotiations that
were sure to come. The Dutch were well aware of their weak position in the coming
negotiations. During a meeting of the Committee for Trade Agreements at the
offices of the Directorate for Economic Affairs of the Foreign Ministry on 3
December 1924, the Chief Executive of this directorate, J.A. Nederbragt, held a long
exposition about the best approach to the problem. Firstly, Nederbragt warned that
it seemed that the Dutch policy of free trade was no longer valued by its trading
partners, as tariffs on Dutch products were being raised. Furthermore, countries like
France were considering raising tariffs by a 100 per cent, so that they would be in a
better bargaining position for trade negotiations. Even though there were other
74
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by the Dutch legation Gevers in Berlin to the
minister for foreign affairs, The Hague, 13 November 1924.
75
Ibidem.
76
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by the Department of trade and Industry, The
Hague, to the Directorate for Economic Affairs of the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, The Hague. 24 November 1924.
179
Jeroen Euwe 4
forces – such as the League of Nations – at work to combat this phenomenon, it was
clear to Nederbragt that a change was coming. What needed to be considered first,
was whether the existing policy of free trade should be continued. Although he still
regarded free trade to be the only right policy, Nederbragt was of the opinion that it
could very well be possible, that Dutch interests in the matter might become so
great, that the government would be forced to change its policy. In the meantime,
the Dutch should protest fiercely against any wrongdoings.
His plan for the trade negotiations with Germany was to avoid any reminders
of the benefactions the Dutch had bestowed upon the Germans, as this would surely
cause Berlin to respond that the Dutch had only done so out of self-interest. Rather,
Germany should be reminded that whereas it was important as hinterland to the
Netherlands, the Gerrmans needed the Dutch for the same reasons. Therefore, the
Dutch policy of free trade was important to them as well. Seeing that in the
Netherlands a very strong movement was actively trying to change this policy, it
would be in their interest to accommodate the Dutch. The negotiations should be
kept in general terms, at no time should they focus on special interests.77
The meeting resulted in an order to the Dutch envoy in Berlin Gevers to
contact the German government to point out that the Dutch policy of free trade held
great benefits to the Germans, but that this policy was now endangered by the
protectionist policies of other countries.78 If Germany was to follow their example,
this might cause the Dutch government to rethink its current policy, which would be
highly damaging to the German interests. If his arguments seemed to find a willing
ear, the envoy was to explain the Dutch desiderata, which were that they be granted
most favoured nation status in the broadest sense, that is including all import and
export bans and quotas, as well as a list of other wishes, such as a larger contingent
for the export of Dutch coal to Germany. In spite of everything, the Dutch went into
negotiations and demanded significant German concessions.
77
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Minutes of a meeting of the Committee for Trade
Agreements at the offices of the Directorate for Economic Affairs on 3 December 1924. This plan of approach is
reiterated in March 1925: NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Highly urgent letter by the
Directorate for Economic Affairs at the Foreign Office, to the negotiators in Berlin, 6 March 1925.
78
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by the minister for foreign affairs to the
Dutch envoy in Berlin, 4 December 1924.
180
Jeroen Euwe 4
Initially, the Dutch prospects seemed good. German negotiator Gerhard Köpke,
Leader of Department II – West- and Southeastern Europe – of the Berlin Foreign
Office, was well-disposed towards the Dutch wishes, and noted that he did not want
the Dutch interests to be subordinated to those of any other country. Köpke asked
for a written statement of the Dutch desiderata.79 Such a statement, written along
the lines discussed earlier during the Dutch preparations for the negotiations, was
provided and discussed in February 1925. The Dutch wishes for the Netherlands and
its colonies were clear, they wanted (a) the status of Most Favoured Nation (MFN)
for import and export, which (b) had to be applicable to any form of restriction or
elimination of import and export restriction, and which (c) also had to apply to
import quotas.80
Köpke immediately noted that on points a and b both parties could quickly
come to an agreement, but that point c was difficult.81 Later that month, this
position was reiterated by the German negotiators Hans Marckwald and Eberhard
von Pannwitz. The problem with import quotas, they said, was that Germany could
be forced to do concessions with regards to such quotas towards for instance goods
from Upper Silesia in the case of Poland, or from Alsace-Lorraine in the case of
France. As they explained, Germany had no means of defence against pressure from
these countries, and therefore often had to give in to the – as they put it –
unreasonable demands of these states.82
Naturally, the Dutch objected, since this would mean that they would still be
disadvantaged. Marckwald then promised to find a wording for this matter that
would be acceptable, and noted that most of the import restrictions would be lifted
shortly. The Dutch wishes with regards to import and export restrictions – points b
and c – would thus lose most of their importance. As to the level of the new tariffs,
he was not able to give any information, as this was as yet unclear. Contrary to the
79
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by envoy Gevers to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs Van Karnebeek, 31 December 1924.
80
Ibidem, appendix to this letter.
81
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by envoy Gevers to the minister for Foreign
Affairs, 4 February 1925.
82
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Report on the negotiations by the Consul-General,
24 February 1924.
181
Jeroen Euwe 4
usual course of events, the German Reichstag wanted to decide the individual levels
of the different tariffs. This would happen sometime after mid-March.83
The German internal discussions took longer than expected. The agrarian
sector wanted to be treated equal to the industry. Since 1922, Germany had radically
raised its import tariffs on industrial products, while tariffs on agricultural products,
which had been abolished when the war broke out, had never been reinstituted.
There were good reasons for that. Although the sector was raising output, in 1925
Germany was still dependent on imports of foodstuffs. Nevertheless, agrarian
interest groups such as the Reichslandbund and the Deutsche Landwirtschaftsrat –
the old and the newly established agrarian pressure group of the Weimar period –
promoted high tariffs for agricultural products by presenting reports to the
government as well as by influencing the public opinion through their publications.84
Agrarian interests were not the only lobbyists for protectionism. Even the RhinelandWestphalian steel industry was in favour of high tariff levels, albeit only on industrial
products, and not on agricultural products.85
The aims of these interets groups were opposed by the government,
supported by consumer organizations, which were wary of the rising cost of living.
Economists also strove to dismantle the existing high tariffs for industrial products,
and advocated free trade through associations such as the Verein für Sozialpolitik –
Association for Social Politics. This influential organization counted many well-known
economists amongst its members, such as the agricultural economist and founder of
the Deutsche Forschungsinstitut für Agrar- und Siedlungswesen – German Research
Institut for Agriculture and Colonisation – Max Sering. This Association argued that
due to the changes in the economic structure of Germany, the country would benefit
from free trade. Sering, formerly a proponent of protectionism, now advocated free
trade. He argued that maximizing German exports was now a necessity of national
importance. The protectionism desired by the agricultural sector would endanger
83
Ibidem.
Dieter Gessner, Agrarverbände in der Weimarer Republik. Wirtschaftliche und soziale Voraussetzungen
agrarkonservativer Politik vor 1933 (Düsseldorf 1976) 68-69.
85
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Report by the Dutch Legation in Berlin on German
tariffs and the Trade Agreement, 6-11-1924; Gessner, Agrarverbände in der Weimarer Republik, 70.
84
182
Jeroen Euwe 4
this.86 The views of Sering’s Institut were not entirely shared by the government,
which did not want protectionism, yet also did not want free trade. Instead, the
Cabinet of Reich Chancellor Wilhelm Marx – a coalition of Catholic and liberal parties
– and from mid-January of its successor, the Cabinet of Reich Chancellor Hans Luther
– a coalition of the same parties, now completed by the German nationalists – strove
for a system of tariffs that would give Germany a position of strength in trade
negotiations with other nations. This meant higher tariffs for agricultural products.
Throughout the spring and much of the summer of 1925, this led to a conflict
between the agricultural and industrial sectors. Ultimately, the latter gave in and
supported tariffs that would be balanced between agriculture and industry. From
now on, both sectors would regularly consult one another.87 In the meantime,
Dutch-German negotiations went on. In the Netherlands, agrarian organisations
were lobbying for special considerations, while pressure was also put on the
negotiations by those interested in Rhine barging and Dutch sea ports to include in
the Dutch demands an adaptation of the Seehafenausnahmetarife – low railway
freights to German seaports and Antwerp to promote rail transport to these ports
and strengthen their competiveness.88 In spite of what had been agreed upon,
within weeks Foreign Minister H.A. van Karnebeek wrote ‘that the question of mostfavoured nation treatment in the Dutch-German trade relations – including the field
of railway freight rates – has my very special attention and […] I would want to see
no avenue neglected that could lead to the intended outcome in this matter.’ 89
Furthermore, the negotiators were to ask their German counterparts, whether it
would be possible to have some representatives of the Dutch farmers to explain
their position on the German tariffs at the German Foreign Office in Berlin.
By the end of the summer, little headway had been made and by August,
D.A.P.N. Koolen, the Dutch minister for Trade and Industry, called for a more active
policy. Although he did not want a protectionist policy, he did want to reserve the
86
‘Belemmering invoer van land- en tuinbouwproducten in Duitschland. Hevige strijd over het ingediende
protectie-ontwerp.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 17-01-1925, Avond.
87
Gessner, Agrarverbände in der Weimarer Republik, 70-73.
88
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by the Dutch legation in Berlin to Nederbragt,
25 February 1925.
89
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by Van Karnebeek to the Dutch legation in
Berlin, 6 March 1925.
183
Jeroen Euwe 4
right to protect Dutch industries if the need should arise. In this, the interest of his
voters became abundantly clear. Koolen was a member of the Roman Catholic Party
that got a substantial part of its votes from the southern part of the country, where
the textiles, the shoe industry and other branches were of interets which
concentrated on the Dutch national market. In Koolen’s view, if a country virtually
closed its borders to Dutch products, it ought to be possible to retaliate by closing
the Dutch borders to the offending country for that same product. The German
Consul-General in Amsterdam, Prince von Hatzfeldt-Trachtenberg, warned Berlin
that the mood in the country had changed, and that – given the composition of the
Second Chamber of Parliament – a bill to that effect might very well pass.90 Less than
a month later, Koolen dug in his heels: ‘Under these circumstances I find it
impossible to collaborate towards an agreement with any government, whereby the
Dutch government would commit itself not to prohibit or restrict the importation of
goods.91
By now, however, time was running out. The new tariff had been passed by
the Reichstag, and would be introduced on October 1, 1925. Van Karnebeek, a
liberal, although not a member of the liberal party, and proponent of free trade, still
had to deal with conflicting wished from the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Trade and Industry. Minster of Trade and Industry Koolen continued
to argue in favour of reserving the right to instate protective measures for industry,
arguing that industry was much more important to the Dutch economy than people
thought, and had a greater share in exports than agriculture. The data he used in this
discussion did not match with the data published at that time by the Dutch Central
Bureau of Statistics. Furthermore, the minister conveniently forgot to mention that
exports to Germany were even more skewed towards agricultural products than
Dutch exports as a whole, and that in 1924 70 per cent of all exports to this
neighbouring country were agrarian.92 His colleague at the The Hague Department of
Agriculture, Dirk Jan de Geer, a member of the protestant CHU whose electorate
90
BArch R 3101/2741 fol.370-372 Generalkonsulat Amsterdam to the Auswärtiges Amtes Berlin, Confidential, 88-1925.
91
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by the Minister for Trade and Industry to the
Minister for Foreign Affairs, 5 September 1925.
92
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by the Minister for Trade and Industry to the
Ministers for Foreign Affairs and for Agriculture, 18 September 1925
184
Jeroen Euwe 4
was primarily found in agricultural areas, was a supporter of free trade. For De Geer,
introducing such demands as Koolen suggested at this stage of the negotiations,
could have ‘dubious consequences’ for the export of agricultural products. If that
would endanger the status of most-favoured nation, the results would be
catastrophic for the 1925 harvest. By now, he was concerned that the 1925 crops
should be sold before it had spoiled, and pleaded that ‘a very swift conclusion of the
agreement with Germany is therefore of overriding importance to agriculture.’ He
therefore moved the Council of Ministers to intervene in the matter.93
The Department of Agriculture was not without faults itself, though. Its
efforts to obtain special tariffs, at first only on shrubberies with roots, then also on
cut flowers and cabbages, also made the negotiations with the Germans run long.
On 21 September, Foreign Minister van Karnebeek tried to apply pressure and
summoned the German envoy, Hellmuth Freiherr von Lucius von Stoedten, who he
informed that it was of the utmost importance that Germany would accommodate
the Dutch by not yet applying the new tariffs on cabbages, cut flowers, and shrubs
with roots. As it was, sentiments in the Netherlands were unfavourable because of
the negative impact of German transport policy to the Dutch transport sector.
Applying these new tariffs at this time would cause a ‘condition of antagonism,
which probably is not coveted by Germany’.94 Even at this late stage in the
negotiations, Van Karnebeek still pointed to the Dutch policy of free trade: ‘Also, I
pointed out to him that we were not to be asked for concessions. Our entire trade
policy is one big concession, and when accommodations are conditional upon extra
concessions, one could just as well refuse.’ He followed this with the veiled threat of
a diplomatic conflict that ‘If Germany wanted to eliminate certain unfavourable
impressions, now would be the time, and then later, with the [trade J.E.] agreement,
the relationship in general could be consolidated.’95
The Dutch dismay was understandable, as compared to the Dutch tariffs the
new German tariffs that just had been accepted in the Reichstag were rather high,
93
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by the Minister for Agriculture to the
chairman of the Council of Ministers, the Finance Minister. 16 September 1925.
94
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Werkarchief Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken H.A. van Karnebeek, 1918-1927,
nummer toegang 2.05.25, inventarisnummer 54, Diary of Van Karnebeek, entry for 21 September 1925.
95
Ibidem.
185
Jeroen Euwe 4
especially for vegetables. Dutch import duties were either 5 or 8 per cent, depending
upon the goods in question. The German tariffs on important Dutch exports were in
some cases relatively low. Butter and cheese for instance, were taxed at 6 and 14
per cent respectively, but the new tariffs for vegetables ranged from 30 to 120 per
cent, those for tomatoes and cauliflower, for instance, were raised to 42 and 85 per
cent.96 Their impact would have been especially harsh, since during the previous ten
years no tariffs had been levied on agricultural products. When the war broke out,
the tariffs on agricultural products had been lifted. Since then, they had not been
reinstituted because the diminished domestic production necessitated food
imports.97
Van Karnebeek’s talk with Lucius seemed to have been fruitful. Four days later in
Berlin, Marckwald took great pains to explain to W.J.R. Thorbecke, Secretary of the
Dutch Legation in Berlin, that the German aims were merely to revise the old system
of tariffs to make it – as Thorbecke relayed it to Van Karnebeek – ‘subservient to
the present economic structure of Germany’.98 According to Marckwald, what made
matters especially complicated, was that the Dutch wanted lower tariffs on
agricultural products. He reminded Thorbecke that this was a sensitive issue in the
Reichstag, which only recently had forced the German government to nullify a trade
agreement with Spain after a small group of farmers had protested.99 Marckwald
reiterated that the German Foreign Office definitely wanted to accommodate the
Dutch desires, and had defended the Dutch position in an interdepartmental
meeting two days before. However, the overriding opinion had been that the only
way the government could ensure parliamentary cooperation would be by securing
some Dutch concessions. These would not have to be much, since they could be
justified with an appeal to the general Dutch trade policy.100 The German position
96
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 105; Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, passim; Own
calculations.
97
Gessner, Agrarverbände in der Weimarer Republik, 68.
98
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by Thorbecke to Van Karnebeek, 25
September 1925.
99
Ibidem; Also: NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by Thorbecke to the Dutch
legation in Berlin, 19 September 1925.
100
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Letter by Thorbecke to Van Karnebeek, 25
September 1925.
186
Jeroen Euwe 4
had been clear from the start: they were eager to grant the Netherlands the status
of most-favoured nation, and willing to grant specific tariffs for a few goods, but
ultimately they could only grant what parliament would agree with.
A year earlier, when the Germans had again wanted to make use of the
Dutch credit on foodstuffs that had been granted in 1920, they had indicated that
they would also like to see the Tredefina-credit for raw materials extended. Given
that the initial objections that this credit would finance the German competition on
the Dutch home market had not come true, the Dutch negotiators now used it in the
negotiations.101 As compensation for the status of most-favoured nation and the
lowering of a few specific tariffs – mostly for agricultural products, only on a few
industrial products – the Dutch agreed to extend the existing credit for raw materials
from ten years to seventeen years, and lowered the interest rate from 6 to 5.5 per
cent.102 The trade agreement known as the Douane- en Kredietverdrag – Customs
and Credit Treaty – that was signed on 25 November 1925 significantly lowered
German import duties: the tariff on butter was reduced from 6 per cent to nil, while
the tariff on cheese went from 15 to 11 per cent, cauliflower from 85 to 11,
tomatoes from 42 to 4.2, and lettuce from 28 to 14 per cent.103
Still, it would take until July 1926 before the bill was passed in the Second
Chamber of Parlement, and another month before it was passed in the First
Chamber, the Senate. Both in the Second and in the First Chamber, discussions were
heated and in both Houses the question was raised why it had not been possible to
obtain better results. After all, as one member of the Senate put it, ‘where the
Netherlands, as it were, is destined by nature to provide the large industrial centres
of Germany with the products of its agriculture, its livestock breeding, its dairying, its
horticulture, where Dutch industry in its processing of colonial and other raw
materials has gained a great reputation – also in Germany, I may add – while for
years Germany has distributed an ever growing amount of its intermediate and
101
NL-HaNA, EZ / Handel en Nijverheid, 2.06.001, inv.nr.4269 Report on the Dutch-German Customs and Credit
Treaty.
102
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 118; J. Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife tijdens
de Weimarrepublik 1919-1933.’ In: Joh. De Vries, Ondernemende geschiedenis: 22 opstellen geschreven bij het
afscheid van Mr. H. van Riel als voorzitter van de Vereniging het Nederlandsch Economisch-Historisch Archief (The
Hague 1977) 321-343, here 333.
103
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, passim; Own calculations.
187
Jeroen Euwe 4
wholly-manufactured products in this country, it seemed that a trade agreement,
advantageous to both countries, would be the most natural thing in the world.’104
Even though some representatives showed more insight into the nature of economic
relations and policy than others, and denounced the naiveté of those who expressed
their disappointment that Germany had not shown more gratitude for the help the
Dutch had given during the difficult first post-war years, such insight would often be
followed by no less naïve thought that the credit facilities offered by the Dutch banks
should have been used to pressure the Germans to be more forthcoming. In fact,
such an approach had been tried by the president of the Netherlands Bank. His
efforts had been a fiasco, since he had not coordinated with the Dutch negotiators
and had let the interests of the Netherlands Bank overlap with those of the trade
negotiations and German transport policy. Anyway, the Germans had realized that –
if needs be – they could by now also turn to the financial markets of New York and
London.
While the agricultural sector was in favour of the new trade agreement, the
opposition to the treaty was strong, and the Dutch negotiators were harshly
criticized. Industry, trade, and transport circles claimed that the interests of
agriculture and horticulture were better served than theirs.105 In February, the
influential chairman of the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Ernst
Heldring, attacked the agreement in his annual address. The high tariffs on
agricultural products would not have hindered their export to Germany, since that
country could not produce these items in sufficient quantities and was therefore
dependent on the imports of these products from the Netherlands. The Germans
had intentionally raised these tariffs in order to secure Dutch concessions in other
issues, and ‘the government has fallen into this trap’. Oddly enough, the lowered
interest rates were criticized more than the decision to extend the duration of the
credit with seven years, as opponents compared the 5.5 per cent interest rates to
those in Germany, which were to the order of 10 per cent.106 In doing so, however,
104
ste
Handelingen Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal, 35 Vergadering van 28 Juli 1926. Remarks by the Member
of the First Chamber of Parliament Van den Bergh jr.
105
Nieuwjaarsrede Heldring ‘De Nederlandsch-Duitsche verdragen.’De Nederlandsche Werkgever. Wekelijks
orgaan van het verbond van Nederlandsche Werkgevers, 8 July 1926.
106
Heldring, Herinneringen en dagboek, 644; ‘Rede van de Voorzitter van de Amsterdamsche Kamer van
Koophandel, Ernst Heldring, over het jaar 1925.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 6 January 1926, Ochtend.
188
Jeroen Euwe 4
they ignored the essence of the Dutch compensation: by 1925, Germany had ample
access to international credit. The Dutch compensation was not in the granting of
the credit, but in its relatively low interest rate.
The effects of the new German trade policy
In 1926, Dutch exports to Germany fell by 14 per cent. In the Netherlands, the cause
was seen in the new German tariffs, and not in the cyclical downturn that hit the
German economy that year. A report by the Reich Statistical Office to the Reich
Minister of Economics on the structure of German-Dutch economic ties argued that
these ties would continue to be intensive, because it was in the nature of things that
the Netherlands would be the main customer of German industry both for its own
use and for transit, while Germany would always be a main customer for Dutch
agricultural products. The report predicted trade would be restored in 1927, and
indeed, during the first quarter of that year there was a revival of Dutch exports to
Germany.107
In spite of Dutch misgivings, not all aspects of the new trade agreement were
negative for Dutch trade, as most of the remaining import restrictions had now been
lifted.108 Furthermore, all foreign suppliers were facing the new tariffs, for which the
Dutch now had most-favoured nation status. From a German point of view, it is quite
understandable that this status of most-favoured nation could not be granted
without compensation, as it would have weakened the German position in the
negotiations with other countries. On the other hand, Berlin did not easely give in,
not even when a possibility existed as a specific product was only important in
German-Dutch trade. This was the case with flower bulbs, of which 99 per cent (in
some years even more) was imported from the Netherlands. In this case, Germany
was not limited in its ability to grant concessions, and could have chosen to tax
flower bulbs either not at all or at a low rate. Instead, a tariff of 30 Rm per 100 kg
was levied, or circa 15 per cent. In the trade agreement, this was reduced to 20
107
BArch R 3101/2744 fol.256-261 Statistisches Reichsamt to the Reichswirtschaftsminister, 7 September 1927.
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Memorandum on the German tariffs by the trade
department of the Dutch legation in Berlin. Probable author Mr. Wolff. November 1924.
108
189
Jeroen Euwe 4
RM/100 kg, or 9 per cent.109 The point is moot, however, since it is impossible to
draw any conclusions based on this single example. Since other Dutch exports
competed with those from other countries, this avenue of inquiry does not allow to
draw any conclusions.
As far as the strength of the position of either party in the negotiations goes,
Germany’s position was strengthened by the fact that, to the Dutch, these exports
were far more important to their economy than they were to the German economy.
The theoretical advantage that Dutch imports from Germany far exceeded their
exports to that country was voided by Dutch adherence to free trade. Apart from a
mass Dutch buyers strike or a radical reorientation of Dutch trade policy, the
Germans thus had nothing to fear during the negotiations on a new trade
agreement, even though the Netherlands was its most important export market. As
an analysis by the trade department of the Dutch legation in Berlin noted: ‘It is not
recommended to resort to the use of forcible means such as reprisals and
retaliation, or import bans. Rather, we should be aware that the Netherlands is more
economically dependent upon Germany, than Germany depends on us; in this
respect, no other country finds itself in such an unfavourable position against
Germany.’110 As has been shown, this was not quite correct, as the new nations in
Eastern and Southeastern Europe were in a comparable or even worse situation.
However, this was of no consequence to the precarious Dutch bargaining position.
Yet, in spite of the weak Dutch position in these negotiations, the German
negotiators were satisfied with a prolongation of the existing Tredefina-credit with
an interest rate that was half a per cent lower, and did not ask for more. This,
however, merely reflected the greater ease with which the Germans could now
obtain credit elsewhere. Considering the relatively low cost to the Dutch of the
prolongation of the Tredefina-credit – basically this was the difference between the
cost that comes with making the money available, and the interest the Germans paid
on this money – the Germans were relatively forthcoming. The new German tariffs
of 1925 were both an answer to the need of the Weimar Republic to minimize
109
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, 110 and 184; Own calculations.
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3259 Memorandum on the German tariffs by the trade
department of the Dutch legation in Berlin. Undated (Autumn 1924, before 13 November).
110
190
Jeroen Euwe 4
imports versus exports, and part of a larger, worldwide trend towards increased
protectionism that had started soon after the war had ended. As the Germans put it:
‘Germany must avail itself of negotiating tariffs, a system of maximum or punitive
tariffs that it can bring to bear on those countries, that will not grant Germany the
status of most favoured nation, or that provide less favourable conditions on their
imports from Germany than they provide other countries.’111 Nevertheless, even
though the significant tariff reductions that resulted from the subsequent trade
agreements seem to confirm this German argument, in the background the aim of
protectionism did play a role. In the explanatory notes that accompanied the draft
legislation, it was noted that both the agricultural sector as industry needed
protection, albeit only of a temporary nature.112 Both the height of the new tariffs
and the reduction of these tariffs in trade agreements were determined by what the
German government could get the Reichstag to agree with. Two years later,
however, agricultural prices all over the world would fall sharply and lead to a severe
crisis in the agricultural sector. The resulting struggle between agrarian interest
groups demanding protection on the one hand, and those of trade and industry
emphasizing the importance of (industrial) exports on the other, would increasingly
influence German trade policy.
In the Netherlands, a similar process took place. The German currencyinduced competition had led to two distinct but short-lived cases of protection, but
had not caused a broad and fundamental discussion on the need to re-evaluate of
the Dutch trade policy. The changing German trade policy, however, did, although
the term protectionism was carefully avoided. From now on, the pros and cons of
what was called an active trade policy were regularly discussed in politics as well as
in the public opinion. The proponents of an active trade policy – a policy of
reciprocity and especially of the use of reprisal tariffs – were organized in April 1926,
when they established the Vereeniging voor Actieve Handelspolitiek – the
Association for Active Trade Policy. 113 Those in favour of free trade responded by
renaming the long-established (1896) Association Het Vrije Ruilverkeer – The Free
111
Ibidem.
Ibidem.
113
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, 21; Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 111-112.
112
191
Jeroen Euwe 4
Exchange of Goods – to the clearer Vereeniging voor Vrijhandel – Association for
Free Trade.114
Since they were dependent upon exports, the Dutch agrarian sector
promoted free trade and opposed anything that could possibly reduce exports,
including any experiments in trade policy. Most of their products were highly
perishable, and thus needed a nearby market. These products were harvested and
thus marketed for only a short period in the year, and had a relatively small market.
Even a short-lived drop in exports could therefore result in untold damages. 115 Dutch
trade and export-oriented industry were also strongly in favour of free trade, as
were the Chambers of Commerce that represented them. Nevertheless, as the
chairman of the Amsterdam Chamber for Commerce and Industry, Ernst Heldring,
noted in his diary, by early 1927 the proponents of reprisal tariffs were gaining
support. His hopes that the newest League of Nations Conference against
protectionism, the International Economic Conference in Geneva that would take
place next May, would be successful were dim.116 Indeed, the Conference did little to
stem the tide, and in the Netherlands, those in favour of an active trade policy
seemed to be gaining further ground. In October 1927, a committee was appointed
to design a new system of tariffs. However, when the fruits of their labour were
presented a year later, the relevant departments and their ministers rejected this
new system.117 Even the incidental protection of industry that was so much desired
by the Department for Trade and Industry was never implemented. Thus, in the
spring of 1928, parliament rejected a proposal to protect the ailing ceramics
industry.118 This came as no surprise to the German Zentralstelle für den
Wirtschaftlichen Auslandsnachrichtendienst – Central Organisation of Foreign
Economic Intelligence – which in advance had stated that the Dutch were making far
too much money by exporting to Germany to enforce protection for such industries.
Germany’s position was too strong for the Dutch to make a fist against Berlin,
114
Heldring, Herinneringen en dagboek, 179 footnote 1.
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel; Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 68-69, 21.
116
Heldring, Herinneringen en dagboek, 686. Entry 1 March 1927.
117
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 121.
118
Barch R 3101/2745 fol.378 Copy of an article from the Industire- und Handelszeitung, 118, 23 May 1928, sent
by the Zentralstelle für den Wirtschaftlichen Auslandsnachrichtendienst to the Reichswirtschaftsministerium, the
Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie and other government instances as well as organizations of trade and
industry, 7 June 1928.
115
192
Jeroen Euwe 4
‘because, should the German accommodations that have thus far been offered be
rescinded, the Netherlands would probably be hit quite hard.’119
In spite of growing protectionism all over the world as a result of first the
onset of the agricultural crisis in 1927 and then the general economic situation in the
autumn of 1929, and increasing activities by the Vereeniging voor Actieve
Handelspolitiek in the form of public meetings and lectures on subjects as
‘Agriculture and bargaining tariffs’ or ‘Geneva and the active trade policy’, in the
Netherlands the idea of free trade prevailed.120 The reason why the concept
managed to retain the upper hand was obvious: in spite of higher tariffs, Dutch
exports kept growing. In Germany, however, the modernization in animal husbandry
meant that the own German production of butter was increasing and the pressure to
protect the German butter producers also grew.121 As a consequence, late 1929, the
main Dutch export product to Germany was about to lose most of its market. The
Dutch reacted in a novel way.
A conflict about butter
The crisis in German agriculture could not be adequately countered by
modernization, and once again there was a call for protection. Because of the
electoral importance of the sector, which directly employed over 29 per cent of the
work force in 1929, Berlin had to heed this call.122 In 1929, at the insistence of the
sector, the government was working towards a drastic raise in tariffs on butter, the
mainstay of German imports from the Netherlands.123 Due to the intricacies of the
119
BArch R 3101/2745 fol.251-255 Report by the Zentralstelle für den Wirtschaftlichen AuslandsnachrichtenDienst to the Reichwirtschaftsministerium, Reichsfinanzministerium and other government instances as well as
organizations of trade and industry. Original report dated 6 Feb 1928, sent 1 March 1928.
120
For example: ‘Actieve handelspolitiek.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 15-11-1928, Avond; The economic German
press also noted this. ‘Die Idee des Freihandels hat in den Niederlanden noch viele und einflußreiche Anhänger’,
noted the Industrie- und Handelszeitung on 23 May 1928. See: BArch R 3101/2745 fol.378 Report by the
Zentralstelle für den Wirtschaftlichen Auslandsnachrichtendienst to the Reichwirtschaftsministerium,
Reichsfinanzministerium, and other government instances as well as organisations of trade and industry, 7 June
1928.
121
BArch R 3101/2745 fol.251-255 Report by the Zentralstelle für den Wirtschaftlichen AuslandsnachrichtenDienst to the Reichwirtschaftsministerium, Reichsfinanzministerium, and other government. Original report
dated 6 Feb 1928, sent 1 March 1928.
122
W.G. Hoffmann, Das Wachstum der deutschen Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1965)
204-206; Own calculations.
123
Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 26 and 28.
193
Jeroen Euwe 4
existing trade agreements, the height of import duties for Dutch butter was
determined by a German trade agreement with the minor supplier of butter,
Finland.
The German-Finnish trade agreement had established the tariffs on butter,
which under the most-favoured nation clause were applicable to Dutch butter as
well. In November 1929, a new trade agreement with Finland raised import duties
from 27.50 RM to 50 RM per 100kg. Finland agreed to this, since Germany provided
compensation: for seven years it would guarantee imports of 8000 tonnes butter,
which was less than a quarter of its butter imports from the Netherlands, but
trippled the usual volume of Finland’s butter exports to Germany.124 Without a
change in the Dutch-German trade agreements, the Dutch exporters of butter were
thus confronted with import duties that had almost doubled. Their organizations,
foremost the Algemene Nederlandse Zuivelbond – Dutch Union of Dairy Producers –
actively sought press coverage for what they regarded as a grave injustice and in the
summer of 1930 called for a boycott of German products.125 As they put it: ‘When
Germany no longer wants our butter, eggs, et cetera, as well as so many other
things, then we no longer want German machines, either large or small, German
knives, scissors, razors, soap, toothpaste, perfumes, packaged drugs, German wines,
beer et cetera, and we will no longer bring in millions of guilders to Germany by
vacationing there.’126 Such a boycott was certainly not new. Earlier that year, the
Dutch electronics firm Philips had threatened its German suppliers with a boycott,
because for years its efforts to sell its products on the German market were being
thwarted by the German government, the German judiciary, and its German rival
companies.127 The year before, it was the brick manufacturers, who had called for a
boycott.128
124
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, 126.
BArch R 43 I/88 fol.266 Overview of the background and development of the boycott. See also various
documents in BArch R 3101/2749 and R 3101/2750.
126
BArch R 3101/2749 fol. 173.
127
BArch R 3101/21061 fol.21-28 ‘Philips und Deutschland.’ Report by the Philips Company on its troubles in
Germany. See also NL-HaNA, Cie. Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag, 2.08.26, inv.nr.25 Correspondence between
Philips, Osram, and the Treuhandverwaltung regarding a conflict that ultimately rooted in the exclusion of
Philips’ radio valves from the German market.
128
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 109.
125
194
Jeroen Euwe 4
The reaction of the Dutch butter producers is understandable, as the
importance of Germany as a market could not be overstated: in 1928, 80 per cent of
all Dutch butter exports were destined for its eastern neighbour.129 Whether it was
because the butter producers rallied the nation as a whole, rather than only their
own industry, or whether it was because the issue resonated with the public, is
difficult to judge, but the call for a general boycott of all German products was
successful. The oimpression of the German exporters was that the Dutch people en
masse declined to buy German products, as did Dutch industry. German trade and
industry saw their exports diminish, and knew what caused it, as they were
inundated with letters from their Dutch trade relations and Dutch industry,
informing them of orders being cancelled and expressing the reason why. By the
summer of 1930, many German chambers of commerce and industrial organizations
were under pressure from their members.130 In turn, these German companies
addressed their government both directly and through organizations such as the
Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie – the German Association of Industry –
explaining the seriousness of the situation in no uncertain terms.131 The
Südwestfälische Industrie und Handelskammer – South Westphalian Industry and
Trade Chamber – in Hagen for instance, approached every relevant German
government authority, form the Reichskanzler to the Reichs Ministers of Economics,
Finance, Employment and even the Prussian Ministry of Trade and Commerce. Their
message was serious, as the orders from the Netherlands had declined considerably,
in fact, one important factory might have to stop much of its production. The
German market share in the Netherlands was under serious threat of being taken
over by English products, and, as the Metallwarenfabrik Union – Ironware factory
‘Union’ – warned, ‘once the market has been lost, due to the well-known
conservatism of the local customers, it will take years of work to recover the lost
ground.’132 German industrial organizations, the Reichsverband der Deutschen
129
Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 27 and 29.
BArch R 43 I / 88 and BArch R 3101/21061, various documents.
131
BArch R 3101/2747, various documents.
132
BArch R 43 I/88 fol. 262-263 Letter by the Südwestfälische Industrie und Handelskammer to the Reichskanzler,
the Reichsminister des Auswärtigen, the Reichswirtschaftsminister, the Reichsminister der Finanzen, the
Reichsarbeitsminister, and the Preussische Ministerium für Handel und Gewerbe, 9 August 1930; BArch R
3101/2749 fol.163 Letter by the Metallwarenfabrik Union, 29 July 1930.
130
195
Jeroen Euwe 4
Industrie, the Verein deutscher Maschinenbauanstalten – Association of German
Machine Factories – and associations representing trade interests like the Deutsche
Industrie- und Handelstag – German Trade and Industie Union – and the
Reichsverband des deutschen Gross- und Überseehandels – Reich Association of
Wholesalers and Overseas Trade –, seeing their interests threatened, rallied and put
pressure to bear on the government. In an effort to come to a solution, there was
even international cooperation as the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce and
Industry and its equivalent in Duisburg-Wesel joined forces in order to find a
solution. By August 1930, the combined efforts of the Dutch boycott movement and
pressure from the German industry brought the cancellation of the provisional trade
agreement with Finland.133
Although the conflict had been decided in favour of the Dutch, it was no
victory over German protectionism. The German trade policy merely changed, and
now turned towards the use of tariff quotas. By October, a new agreement was
reached with Finland, whereby that country received the right to export 5000 tonnes
of butter to Germany, to be taxed at 50 RM per 100 kg. A month later, the
agreement was ratified and put into effect. As most-favoured nation, the same rates
applied to the Netherlands, but just as for Finland, only for 5000 tonnes.134 The
threat of a boycott also remained, even after the conflict had been resolved. When
in January 1932 the German tariffs on a number of important products such as
butter, cheese, and eggs were raised considerably, German industry immediately
received letters from their Dutch customers again. Given that these products were
highly susceptible to the economic downturn, and Germany was in the midst of a
severe economic crisis, it is unlikely that the tariffs were to blame for the rapidly
declining Dutch exports to its neighbour.
Since the trade agreement of 1925, the Dutch had taken an increasingly reproachful
attitude towards the Germans. By the spring of 1930, when once again tariffs were
being negotiated, a member of the Dutch delegation noted, that all these
133
134
Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 80.
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 125; Sauer, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen, 81.
196
Jeroen Euwe 4
negotiations were counter-productive.135 However, in the face of increasing tariffs,
the Dutch attitude was understandable, for as the Directorate for Economic Affairs
of the Foreign Office remarked, still ‘no means are at our disposal to force Germany
to accommodate the Dutch desires in a more generous fashion.’136 In the course of
that year, this position would start to change.
A shift in Dutch trade policy
Within the League of Nations, throughout the 1920s efforts to promote better trade
relations and drive back protectionism were made. In the face of the economic crisis
and the now rapidly worsening situation in international trade, the League organized
another economic conference in Geneva in February 1930. Here, the former and
future Dutch Prime Minister Colijn, then a member of the First Chamber of the Dutch
Parliament, introduced a plan. The member states would be divided into those who
adhered to the principle of free trade – Great Britain, the Netherlands, Norway, and
Denmark – and those who used tariffs to improve their negotiating position and
protect their markets. The countries adhering to free trade would continue to do so
and promosie not to change their policy if they were rewarded by the protectionist
countries by not terminating existing trade agreements. This left the countries
employing protectionist tariffs free to pursue this policy with regards to other
countries. At a later date, the countries that still held to the principles of free trade
hoped to gain concessions. For a short period of time, it seemed the conference
would be something of a success as the Plan-Colijn had been accepted, as the mopre
protectionismt countries hoped to bind Britain – were the opposition wanted a more
protectionsist course – to its traditional free trade policy.137 Just as in Britain,
however, even in the Netherlands, those who had traditionally been among the
135
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3261 Letter by the Dutch legation on Berlin to the
Foreign Minister, 17 March 1930.
136
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.3261 Letter by the Directorate for Economic Affairs to
the Minister for Employment, 5 March 1930.
137
Hein A.M. Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire. De economische betrekkingen van Nederland met zijn
belangrijkste handelspartners: Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië en België en de Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 19291936 (Amsterdam: NEHA, 1990) 118-119. On the change in Dutch trade policy, see also: Blaisse, De Nederlandse
handelspolitiek.
197
Jeroen Euwe 4
proponents of free trade were changing position. The Dutch agricultural
organizations that year cooperated in the writing of an emergency program that in
essence was a call for a more active trade policy.138
Few countries actually ratified the agreement reached at the February
Conference. Therefore, in November that year, the conference was reconvened.
Colijn tried to apply pressure by suggesting that those still adhering to free trade
might turn towards protectionism as well, pointing out that even in the Netherlands
the adoption of an active trade policy was increasingly likely. As few actually
believed the Dutch would abandon free trade, his ploy was unsuccessful. Only
Germany was – under severely limiting conditions – willing to negotiate.139 The
governmental Zentralstelle für Aussenhandel – Central Organisation for Foreign
Trade – was under pressure from representatives of the various industrial
organizations, who were expressing their anxiety over the advance of economic
nationalism in the Netherlands.140 This Zentralstelle tried to reassure them by stating
that, although it might seem that the idea of economic nationalism had gained
ground in a way that held terrifying prospects for German exports, in fact this would
be an overestimation of the measures that had until then been taken.141
In March 1931, in Geneva, yet another Conference was held. As all efforts to
bring the parties together had failed, it ended with the conclusion that further
conferences on the matter would be futile. From now on, trade relations would
again be settled in bilateral talks instead of in broad forums.142 By then, the smaller
Northern European countries – the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and
Belgium (that since 1922 formed a customs union with Luxembourg) – had met in
Oslo, hoping to remove obstacles in their mutual trade relations and to improve
their position vis-à-vis the larger states by working together. Like the Conferences in
Geneva, the diverse interests of these countries severely limited what could be
achieved. In spite of initial high hopes, the resulting Oslo Agreement merely
138
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 106.
Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire, 119.
140
BArch R 3101/2749 fol.3-13 Letter by the Zentralstelle für Außenhandel to the Deutsche Legation in The
Hague and the German consulates in Amsterdam and Rotterdam, 5 May 1930.
141
BArch R 3101/2749 fol.114-116 Confidential letter and report by the Zentralstelle für Außenhandel to the
Auswärtiges Amt, Reichswirtschaftsministerium, Reichsverband der Deutschen Industrie, and other organizations
of trade and industry. 25 June 1930.
142
Klemann, Tussen Reich en Empire, 119
139
198
Jeroen Euwe 4
obligated each country to inform the others of any intended tariff increases.143 The
obstacles in mutual trade relations remained, and the use of safety measures and
bureaucracy to hinder imports continued to grow. 144
In the Netherlands, the proponents of free trade still had the upper hand. The plans
of the Dutch cabinet that were outlined by H.M. the Queen in the Speech from the
Throne of 15 September 1931, still only spoke of the possible protection of Dutch
industries.145 Four days later, the British abandoned the Gold Standard and the
pound sterling devalued. Soon the British were followed by the Scandinavian
countries, while the Dutch guilder remained linked to the gold and was in fact
appriciated vis-à- vis the British pound and other major currencies. Dutch exports to
Germany had suffered for some time now, as Germany sank ever deeper into the
economic crisis. From the sterling crisis on, Dutch exports to the other main trading
partner were obliterated overnight as well. In 1932, exports to Great Britain were
half of what they had been the year before, but the British devaluation had more farreaching consequences than the diminution of Dutch exports to the UK. Dutch
export could no longer compete with products from countries with devalued
currency such as the Scandinavian countries or the countries of the British Empire,
and thus fell sharply. At the same time, high internal price levels meant that the
Dutch industry was unable to compete with the now cheap imports from these
countries that flooded the home market. In a reaction, in December, in the Second
Chamber of Parliament, without any opposition a law was passed that raised tariffs
on most imports from 8 to 10 per cent.146 More importantly, this Crisisinvoerwet –
Crisis Law on Imports – now also included import quota. From now on, the Dutch
home market could be protected simply by denying import licenses.147 Free trade
had given way to protectionism.
143
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 126.
NL-HaNA, EZ / Handel en Nijverheid, 2.06.001, inv.nr.4303 Various reports; NL-HaNA, EZ / Handel en
Nijverheid, 2.06.001, inv.nr.4303 Letter by the Minister of Labour Trade and Industry to the Minister for Foreign
Affairs, 7 May 1931.
145
Handelingen Verenigde Vergadering der Staten-Generaal, 1931-1932 15 september 1931, Speech from the
Throne, 15 September 1931.
146
Blaisse, De Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 204.
147
Van Beukering, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel, 22; H.M. Hirschfeld, Actieve Economische Politiek
(Amsterdam 1946); NA 2.06.065, various documents.
144
199
Jeroen Euwe 4
4.5
Conclusion
The First World War and its aftermath caused structural changes in Germany’s
foreign trade. This was caused firstly by the loss of territories, which shifted the
German needs towards a higher import of foodstuffs – from less than 30 to over 40
per cent of all German imports – and of certain raw materials. The second reason for
the structural change was the German need to protect its markets in order to be
able to pay reparations to the Entente by a trade surplus. Therefore, exports had to
be maximized and imports minimized. Prior to the war, Germany had protected its
agricultural sector. When the World War broke out, the need for imports of food had
been such that these had been abolished. Since after the end of the war, this need
continued and the price of these imports was high, these tariffs had not been
reinstated. For many industrial products, however, tariffs were raised at this time.
These affected every German trade partner the same, since in response to the
Treaty of Versailles, which had forced the Germans to unilaterally grant the mostfavoured-nation status to the members of the Entente, until January 1925, every
country had been granted this status. Only from 1925 on, Germany’s trade policy
changed.
Another aspect of Germany’s foreign trade that had changed, was the structure of
its trade relations. Before the war, these had been firmly oriented on Europe, and
this would not change much. Within Europe there were dramatic changes, however.
Central and Eastern Europe, where as a consequence of the loss of important
German territories, the disintegration of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the 1917
Treaty of Brest-Litovsk that resulted in substantial teritorial losses for the new Soviet
Union, many new states had been formed, greatly increased in importance as
destination for German exports. Nevertheless, most of these countries were in a
highly dependent position vis-à-vis Germany, since these trade relations were of far
greater importance to their economies than these were to the German economy.
Exports to Central and especially most of Southern Europe took some time to
recover after the German economic recovery started. When this trade did recover,
however, the Great Depression was about to start already. Before 1914, Germany
had been the primary supplier and second-largest market for Scandinavia, and it
200
Jeroen Euwe 4
would reclaim this position within two or three years after the monetary
stabilization of 1924, while the importance of the region for German foreign trade
increased slightly. Germany’s trade relations with most of Western Europe were
different. Once the second-largest exporter to Great Britain, France and Belgium,
Germany now was a supplier of minor importance. As a market to their products, the
Reich was also less important than it had been before the Great War. To Germany,
trade with France and Britain would never be as important as it had once been,
while with Belgium only imports would fully recover.
The one country with which trade not only recovered instantaneously once the
German currency had stabilized, but also became far more important than it had
ever been before the war, was the Netherlands. During the war, Dutch-German
relations were not quite friendly. Germany, in desperate need for food imports, had
to resort to virtual blackmail to obtain these. When late in the autumn of 1918 the
imminent German defeat became obvious, Berlin tried to safeguard its trade
relations with the Dutch. In this, it was successful, as these relations became even
more important than they had ever been before. Compared to the pre-war situation,
the importance of the Netherlands both as a market as as a supplier of Germany had
greatly increased. Whereas before the war, the Dutch share in German imports had
been 3 per cent, by 1925 – the first full year of monetary stability, which marked the
reversal of the Weimar Republic’s fortunes – this had almost doubled to 6 per cent.
The Dutch share in German exports had also increased substantially, from 7 to 11
per cent.
The German need for food imports was at the core of the increased imports
from the Netherlands. That it was its western neighbour that profited, was due to
the fact that with the loss of much of the German industry in the east, the industry
of the extended Ruhr area gained in importance. As industry in the region expanded,
the population did so as well. The increased German need for food was thus
concentrated in this region. Throughout the 1920s, 65 to 75 per cent of Dutch
exports consisted of foodstuffs, mainly vegetables, fish, meat, and especially dairy
products such as butter and cheese. The destination for the majority of these
foodstuffs was the extended Ruhr area. During the German crisis, only those
201
Jeroen Euwe 4
products for which substitution was difficult, such as cheese, or which were part of
the basic diet, such as vegetables, still found a – albeit much reduced – market in
Germany. From 1924, as the German economy recovered, the demand for these
products was the first to increase, which explains the instant and dramatic rise in
imports from the Netherlands.
The larger Dutch share in German exports was mostly caused by the
increased demand for (semi)-manufactured goods such as machinary and fertilizers
for Dutch industry and agriculture, for consumer goods such as textiles and
hardware, and for raw materials, mostly coal. Throughout the 1920s, Dutch imports
from Germany would rise. It was only in 1930, that they would start to decline.
Remarkably however, once corrected for the drop in prices, during the depression
the decrease in imports from Germany was actually very little. Imports from other
countries fell at a much faster rate. The volume of Dutch exports to its neighbour
showed a very different development. Even when considering the volume – by
correcting for changes in price –, once the crisis set in, exports to Germany
decreased at a much faster rate than those to other countries. That this should be
so, is not so much due to the much-maligned German protectionist policies, but
rather an indication of the severity of the economic crisis in Germany.
Most of the Dutch-German political relations during the era had to do with economic
affairs. Until 1925, the German trade policy was the same towards all countries.
Since the Treaty of Versailles had obligated it to grant the status of most favoured
nation to the members of the Entente, Germany had granted this privilege to all its
trading partners. This did not mean that tariffs were not raised. Actually, import
duties on industrial products rose considerably. This was, because the Treaty of
Versailles had also forced Germany to pay reparations. These could only be paid if
Germany managed to create a trade surplus or import foreign capital. The need to
do so shaped German trade policy.
Until 1924, these tariffs were of little importance, as Germany’s monetary
problems meant that such imports were minimal anyway. Tariffs on agricultural
products had been lifted at the beginning of the war, and afterwards they had not
been reinstituted because Germany had a structural need for food imports, and
202
Jeroen Euwe 4
during the inflationary period it certainly did not want to raise price levels even
further by taxing basic consumer products. When at the end of 1923, the Mark was
stabilized, food imports therefore rose quickly and trade relations with the
Netherlands were the first to recover.
When the rule of the Versailles treaty expired that German had to give mostfavoured nation treatement to all its former enemies, it was decided to change the
German trade policy. New German import tariffs were imposed in the late summer
of 1925. The Dutch were most upset as Germany would now not just start to charge
tariffs on agricultural products as they had not done since 1914, but these tariffs
were actually signifcantly higher than they had been before the war. Yet, this was
not a deliberate choice of the German government, nor were these tariffs directed
specifically against the Netherlands. The German Reichstag had decided it wanted to
set the tariff levels, and here agricultural interests had significant influence. In spite
of the fact that Germany wanted to keep internal price levels low, the agricultural
products which it needed to import were taxed at a high level.
In the negotiations for a new trade agreement, which had started at the end of 1924,
the Dutch were treated quite favourably. The Dutch were fully aware that they had
nothing to offer, and had to decide how best to convince the German to grant them
the status of most favoured nation without asking for Dutch compensation. The best
approach, they decided, was to convince the German negotiators of the importance
of the Dutch free trade policy to the German economy. Berlin, however, was well
aware of the importance of the mutual trade relations, and from the outset
promised The Hague that it would be no problems for them to give the Dutch the
most favourated nation status. When agricultural interest groups in the Netherlands
started to ask for specific tariff concessions, and the Dutch foreign minister Van
Karnebeek muddied the waters by including the German transport policy in the
debat on the trade agreement, the negotiations faltered, however. Increasing
friction between the Dutch Department for Trade and Industry and the Department
for Agriculture caused further delays and presented the Dutch negotiators with the
problem that Dutch wishes were no longer clear or consistent. The Dutch press and
diverse interest groups were by now declaring that after all the Dutch had done to
203
Jeroen Euwe 4
help the Germans, Berlin was ungrateful and hostile. By the time the Dutch-German
negotiations picked up steam, in October 1925, the Germans asked for Dutch
compensation by way of a modification of the existing credit treaty. The duration of
the treaty was to be extended from 10 to 17 years, and the interest rate lowered by
half a per cent. The Dutch agreed, and in November 1925 the agreement was signed.
Although this agreement was the best The Hague could get, opposition to it was
fierce, and only nine months later the treaty was ratified in the Second Chamber of
Dutch Parliament.
The chaotic realization of the trade agreement makes it difficult to gauge,
whether the Dutch were treated benevolently or not. The outcome – while not to
the liking of many – seems advantageous to the main Dutch export interests. Tariffs
may have been higher than before, but Dutch exports were taxed at the lowest rate.
The price, the extension of the Dutch credit to German industry, seems reasonable
because the Germans could have asked for more – such as lower Dutch import
duties. The lower interest rate, while considerably lower than domestic German
rates, not only reflected Dutch interest rates, but also the fact that the Germans by
now had easy access to other foreign financial markets. Given that the German
government was limited by what it could get the Reichstag to agree with, it seems
that the Dutch – whose negotiating position was weakened by similar issues – were,
in fact, to some degree indulged.
As the German agricultural sector increased its output, and from 1927 was struck by
the world-wide agricultural crisis, the German government was pressured to protect
its home market. The German market for industrial products and for raw materials
was also increasingly shut off from imports. Accordingly, Dutch disenchantment with
the Germans was growing. Nevertheless, as exports to Germany were still growing,
this tension never had any real consequences. Only when in 1929 German import of
the most important Dutch export product, butter, was threatened, popular opinion
decidedly turned against Germany. In the summer of 1930, a massive Dutch boycot
of German products caused a concerted effort of German industrial interest groups
to work together against further agrarian protectionism. These combined efforts
managed to supersede those of the agricultural sector. The German plans to raise
204
Jeroen Euwe 4
the tariff on butter were shelved only temporarily, however, for a few months later,
import quotas were instituted.
Real political problems only started when the German economy was in crisis
and imports – especially of Dutch luxury foodstuffs such as butter – were decreasing
regardless of tariffs or quota. Until then, whenever this was in their interest or the
cost was not too high, the Germans indulged the Dutch. Berlin was aware of the fact
that imports of foodstuffs were a necessity, although this was decreasing as the
output of the German agricultural sector increased. High tariffs were therefore not
so much a necessity as a way to accomodate agricultural interests, balanced with the
export-oriented interests of the German industry. By the end of 1930, the crisis at
home and the decrease in exports meant that this became a luxury they could no
longer afford.
At the most basic level, it can be said that the Dutch fed the Ruhr population, and
bought the products of Ruhr industry. Since much of Dutch trade consisted of
foodstuffs that were either expensive or easily substituted, the level of mutual trade
was determined more by the economic circumstances than by any trade policy. The
next chapter further extends this argument, in that its analysis of transport flows
shows how the Dutch economic ties with its neighbour were primarily ties with the
extended Ruhr region.
205
Jeroen Euwe 5
Chapter 5 - Transport
5.1
Introduction
“Just a cursory look at the map already reveals the almost natural inevitability of the
interweaving of traffic and economy of the Rhine areas with the Netherlands: the close
proximity to the border of both economic areas, their integration into the Rhine river
system and their economic community with the large ports of the Rhine and the
seaports”.1 Such were the words Konrad Adenauer – at the time head-Burgomaster of
Cologne, later the first Chancellor of West Germany – chose to open his essay on the
economic relations between the Netherlands and the Rhineland for the annual report of
the Dutch Chamber of Commerce for Germany for 1929-1930. Adenauer concluded, “The
backbone of the economic ties between Germany and the Netherlands is the Rhine”.2 In
describing his views on the nature of Dutch-German economic ties as being the result of
the integration of two economic regions into a greater region formed by the Rhine river
system, Adenauer thus recognized the Rhine as a transnational economic region. This
chapter examines the correctness of Adenauer’s claim, and in doing so explores not only
the role of transport and transport policy in Dutch-German economic relations, but also
whether these were between the Netherlands and Germany as a whole, or rather
between regional parts of these two countries.
In examining whether the Rhine region can indeed be regarded as a transnational
economic region – with German-Dutch transport as a driving force –, it will be necessary
to identify its economic centre. To do so, first the changing relation between the port of
Rotterdam and its hinterland and the development of the infrastructure necessary for
transport will be explored, after that an analysis will follow of the internal and
international transport flows in both Germany and the Netherlands, which – apart from
the work done by Rainer Fremdling on Dutch-German railway traffic, and on German
internal trade flows by Nikolaus Wolf – has been largely neglected.3 In order to be able to
1
K. Adenauer, ´Die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen dem Rheinland und den Niederlande.´ In: Jahresbericht der
Nederlandsche Kamer van Koophandel voor Duitschland 1929-1930 (Frankfurt am Main 1930) 5-8, here 5.
2
Ibidem. The original text reads: ‚Das Rückgrat der deutsch-holländischen Wirtschaftsverbindung ist der Rhein.’
3
R. Fremdling, ‘Per spoor de grens over: Niederländisch-deutsche Eisenbahnbeziehungen, 1853-1938.’ In: J.C.G.M.
Jansen (Ed.), Economische betrekkingen in grensregio’s in een industrieel tijdperk, 1750-1965 (Leeuwarden 1996) 37-67;
206
Jeroen Euwe 5
put Dutch-German transport into perspective, the competition between the Netherlands,
Belgium and France for transport to and from Germany – both by barge shipping and by
railways – will then be reviewed.
Transport in the region also had a significant political component. As was the case
with trade, the Germans were actively pursuing a policy that would both protect its own
economy – in this case by helping German ports attract traffic – and would help them to
develop a trade surplus. They were not the only ones to do so. The Dutch, Belgians and
French did the same. Due to Germany’s unique post-war circumstances, however, the
German transport policy led to escalating diplomatic conflicts with the Netherlands.
Likewise, the importance of Rhine traffic to the Belgians caused Dutch-Belgian tension
over the connection between the port of Antwerp and the Rhine. The Rhine was of such
crucial importance to the North-Western European economies, that at Versailles the Allies
tried to lessen the German influence in the Central Commission for Navigation on the
Rhine, the international body that regulated Rhine navigation and supervised the
maintenance of the channel of the river. These political aspects to a greater or lesser
extent, all influenced the development of transport in North-Western Europe through
their impact on competition between modes of transport and between ports.
Only after all flows of traffic, competition with other ports and between modes of
transportation have been assessed, will the extent of Dutch-German dependence in
international transport be sufficiently clear to conclude whether Adenauer’s claim was
valid. The statistical data on transport were compiled using the yearbooks published by
the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine, the Dutch Central Bureau for
Statistics, and the wide variety of publications by the German Statistisches Reichsamt.4
Misprints in these publications were corrected through comparisons between these
sources, and the work of Andreas Kunz.5
Nikolaus Wolf, ‘Was Germany ever united? Evidence from Intra- and International Trade, 1885-1933.’ Journal of
Economic History 69 (3), September 2009, 846-881.
4
CBS, Jaarstatistiek van den in-, uit-, en doorvoer [1919-1933] (The Hague [1919-1934]); Zentral-Kommission für die
Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Berichten der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt [1920-1933] (Strasbourg [1921-1934]);
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen [1925-1929] (Berlin [1926-1930]); Statistisches
Reichsamt, Verkehr der deutschen Binnenwasserstraßen im Jahr [1925-1929] (Berlin [1926-1930]); Statistisches
Reichsamt, Die binnenschiffahrt im Jahre [1925-1929] (Berlin [1926-1930])
5
A. Kunz, Statistik der Binnenschiffahrt in Deutschland (St. Katharinen 1999).
207
Jeroen Euwe 5
5.2
Rotterdam and the German hinterland
Rhine shipping and railway traffic with Germany took off when in the 1860s the German,
more specifically the Rhenian-Westphalia coal-based industrialization accelerated. Just
across the Dutch-German border, partly in the Prussian Rheinprovinz, partly in Prussian
Westphalia, industry concentrated near the Ruhr, a tributary of the Rhine, and along the
Rhine itself. The area combined large deposits of high quality coal and by way of the Rhine
provided a convenient and cheap mode of transportation. After the canalization process
that took from the 1850s to the early 1890s, the Rhine proved to be uniquely suitable for
inland shipping: the water level was almost always sufficient, and was relatively stable
due to the regulating influence of the Lake Constance. As a consequence, the Rhine was
navigable up to Mannheim for ships of 4,000 tonnes, while Strasbourg could be reached
with ships measuring 2.500 tonnes without any hindrances by locks or other obstacles.6
Transport in bulk of coal and ores grew at a fast rate as Germany changed from an
agrarian to an industrialized economy. Due to the canalization and technical progress in
shipping, Rhine transport was able to profit from this growth.7 Whereas traffic across the
Dutch-German border in 1840 amounted to some 375.000 ton exports – mostly raw
materials – and 128.000 tonnes imports – mostly merchandise – by 1913 German exports
along the Rhine consisted of millions of tonnes of coal and limited amounts of wholly and
semi-manufactured products, while imports consisted of similar quantities of raw
materials for the German industry – ores and wood – and of cereals to feed the industrial
centres of the Rhineland. Dutch ports – especially Rotterdam, to a lesser extent
Amsterdam and other ports – profited from this development, and as a result became
more dependent on Germany: in 1913 almost 75 per cent of the overseas goods incoming
in Rotterdam where destined for Germany. Just twenty-three years earlier this had been
50 per cent.8
While the ports of Amsterdam and Antwerp focussed on mixed cargo, Rotterdam
concentrated on the transport in bulk. Before long, Rotterdam became ‘the bridge that
connects the German hinterland and west-German industry to the world market’.9 The
6
J. Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams für die rheinische Wirtschaft, insbesondere für die deutsche Rheinschiffahrt
(Köln 1940) 38.
7
Hein A.M. Klemann and Joep Schenk, ‘Competition in the Rhine Delta. Waterways, railways and ports, 1870-1913’,
Economic History Review (forthcoming).
8
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 7-8 and 53.
9
Ibidem 33.
208
Jeroen Euwe 5
connections to the coal mines and the iron industry of the lower Rhine were especially
strong, though there was also significant traffic to and from other spheres of industry,
such as the chemical and paper industry.10 Rotterdam actively attracted as much of the
Rhine traffic as it possibly could. Acknowledging the importance of accessibility both for
inland shipping and large ocean-going freighters as well as the advantages conferred by
modern harbour machinery and low harbour rates, the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce
and Industry put constantly pressure on the Dutch government and the city of Rotterdam
to improve the accessibility of the port from the sea, to improve the transhipment
installations and with that the efficiency of disembarking sea ships and loading barges or
other vehicles for further inland transport of the cargo. The Chamber was successful: in
1918 it was decided to dredge the Nieuwe Waterweg – the canal that connected
Rotterdam to the sea since 1875 – to a significantly greater depth.11 Its concerns regarding
the harbour costs were not heeded however, and these would remain significantly higher
than those in Antwerp or Hamburg throughout the 1919-1931 period.12
The hinterland of the port of Rotterdam did not consist of just the Rhine basin.
Rhine traffic extended further east through the Rhine-Herne Canal and the Lippe Branch
Canal – both mainly used for the transport of coal – and the tributary rivers of the Rhine,
the Main, Moselle, Neckar and Lahn.13 During the rise of railway transport in the first half
of the nineteenth century, railways and inland shipping along the Rhine enjoyed a
mutually advantageous relationship. In Germany, railways were initially constructed at
right angles to the Rhine, and rail transport carried goods from specially constructed ports
further inland.14 During the 1860s and 1870s however, the Rheinische
Eisenbahngesellschaft – the Rhine Railway Company – was laying tracks alongside the
Rhine towards the Netherlands.15 In the Netherlands, the first plans for a railway
connection to Germany were considered in the early 1830’s. Primarily intended for the
transport of goods, it was supposed to connect Amsterdam with Cologne. 16 The plans
were aborted however, and the first railway connecting the Netherlands with Germany,
10
Ibidem 34.
H.J.D. van Lier, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 1803-1928 (Rotterdam 1928) 828, 849-853.
12
J. Verseput, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 1928-1955 (Rotterdam 1955) 69-70, 73.
13
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 33-34, 38.
14
A.F. Napp-Zinn, Binnenschiffahrt und Eisenbahn (Leipzig 1928) 5; J. Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen over de
Rijnscheepvaart (Assen 1951) 99.
15
Fremdling, Per spoor de grens over, 47.
16
Ibidem 40.
11
209
Jeroen Euwe 5
the Maastricht-Aachen railway, only opened in 1853.17 Far more noteworthy was the
establishment three years later of a railway between Arnhem and Oberhausen. 18
However, while railway traffic within Germany soon exceeded inland shipping, traffic with
the Netherlands remained focussed on Rhine shipping.
Source: Commission Centrale pour la navigation du Rhin, Rapport Annuel de la Commission Centrale pour la navigation du Rhin, 1933
(Strasbourg 1934).
For the transport to and from the hinterland of Rotterdam’s Belgian competitor, Antwerp,
however, railways were a far more important mode of transport. Whereas during the
1920s international transport by train accounted for less than two percent of all
international traffic with Rotterdam’s hinterland, in Antwerp rail transport amounted to
over twenty percent.19 By 1913, Belgium boasted the world’s highest railway density.
17
Ibidem 54.
Ibidem 41.
19
Data for Rotterdam: F.M.M. Goey, (2003), Database on cargo flows in the port of Rotterdam, 1880-2000;
Goederenoverslag Rotterdamse haven, 1880-2000. https://easy.dans.knaw.nl/ui/datasets/id/easy-dataset:39487
(accessed on 17/10/2012). Data for Antwerp originate from the data collection of the Economic History Workshop
18
210
Jeroen Euwe 5
These railways connected Antwerp to Germany by three major routes: Antwerp – Leuven
– Liège – Aachen – Cologne (opened in 1853 and widely known as the Iron Rhine),
Antwerp – Hasselt – Maastricht – Aachen, and Antwerp – Mönchen Gladbach.20
While the German railways – originally a multitude of privately owned lines – were
soon either partially or entirely nationalized by the federal or Prussian government,
thereby keeping internal competition to a minimum, all facets of Rhine shipping such as
ports, ships, et cetera remained in the hands of either private individuals, firms, municipal
authorities or individual German states. Furthermore, navigation on the Rhine was
regulated by an international organization, the Central Commission for Navigation of the
Rhine, which, with the adoption of the Act of Mannheim of 1868, guaranteed that no tolls
were levied on the river and that no discrimination by flag or the ownership of the cargo
was allowed. Thus, in contrast to the railways, the Rhine was open to fierce competition.
In combination with technological improvements, by the 1890s this led to faster and more
efficient inland shipping. This in turn led to Rhine shipping becoming a cheap and viable
alternative to rail transport as between 1890 and 1913 the costs of Rhine transport
dropped 78 percent, whereas the cost of rail transport remained stable and even showed
a tendency to rise.21 Combined with rapid industrial growth, the result was a fast
expansion of Rhine traffic (Graph 5.1).
Rhine shipping initially contained two basic types of enterprise: large, multi-ship shipping
companies and single-ship companies consisting of a captain and his immediate family.
Later, a third type form sprang up as mining and steel companies invested in their own
fleets. In Germany, large shipping companies owned the majority of the Rhine barges, as
many private individuals were unable to finance the transition to the larger, iron barges
which in trains of four were tugged by steamers.22 The large shipping companies by
themselves can also be divided into two groups, those who remained independent, and
those who were allied to industrial or trading enterprises, the so-called Werksreedereien –
(Centre of Economic Studies, Leuven University), theme: ‘Continental throughput’, datasets ‘Inland shipping by cargo
flows’, and ‘Railway transport by cargo flows’. See: R. Loyen, ‘Functional shifts in the port of Antwerp. A throughput
model.’ International journal of maritime history, XIII-2 (2001) 73-93; own calculations.
20
W. Warsch, Antwerpen, Rotterdam und ein Rhein-Maas-Scheldekanal (Duisburg 1920) 35.
21
J.-P. Smits, E. Horlings, J.L. van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its Components, 1800-1913 (Groningen 2000) 146-147;
Klemann and Schenk, ‘Competition in the Rhine Delta’; Own calculations.
22
Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 71-72.
211
Jeroen Euwe 5
company ship-owners. The ships of these barge fleets owned by mining or steel
companies were the most numerous, which was due in part to the demand for transport
at fixed prices as well as the possibilities these big companies had to finance the
expansion and modernization needed in the late nineteenth century to materialize the
increased scale that caused the decline of transport costs.23 While fixed prices in a
competitive market may seem to be a hindrance to delivering a product at the lowest
possible price, one should keep in mind that fixed costs were low because the shipping
company was assured of regular, predictable freights. As they needed their shipping fleet
to be as productive as possible, the Werksreedereien kept the size of their fleet to a
minimum. In busy times, extra ships were simply hired from the ranks of the small private
shipping companies.24 The most important group of Werksreedereien consisted of those
of coal shipping companies. At the end of the nineteenth century coalmines started to
seek control of shipping companies, either by establishing their own shipping company –
Thyssen established the N.V. Handels- en Transport-Mij. “Vulcaan” Rotterdam – the Dutch
limited company Trade and transport Company Vulcaan – for this purpose – or by
acquiring a controlling interest in existing shipping companies.25 In 1903 these shipping
companies joined in the Kohlenkontor, a sales organisation of the Rheinisch-Westfälischen
Kohlensyndikat.26 Such joining of forces was common at the time.27 In the Ruhr district a
large number of ports were also owned by private firms: Companies like Wesseling,
Walsum, Alsum, Schwelgern, Rheinhausen of Krupp, Gustavsburg of Mathias Stinnes, all
owned their own ports. This was another example of the ongoing process of vertical
integration – combining production, storage, transhipment, and shipment – as a result of
the fierce competition.28
Similar processes occurred amongst the private shipping companies. Due to the
increasing number of ships employed in Rhine shipping at the end of the nineteenth
century, in 1890 German private shipping companies joined forces in the association Jus
et Justitia, but that was no more than a union to defend the interests of the shippers.29 In
23
L. Jolmes, Geschichte der Unternehmungen in der deutschen Rheinschiffahrt (Köln 1960) 33.
Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 73.
25
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 52.
26
Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 77; Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 52.
27
Jolmes, Geschichte der Unternehmungen, 54.
28
G. Haelling, Le Rhin. Politique, économique, commercial (Paris 1921) 157-159; Jolmes, Geschichte der
Unternehmungen, 53-55.
29
Jolmes, Geschichte der Unternehmungen, 34; Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 52.
24
212
Jeroen Euwe 5
1903, they cooperated with forwarding companies in the founding of the Vereinigte
Spediteure- und Schiffer-GmbH – United Agents and Skippers Ltd – in Mannheim.30
In contrast to Germany, France or Belgium, a very large part of the barge fleet in the
Netherlands was in the hands of small, individual skippers. The larger Dutch Rhine
shipping companies were all either subsidiaries of maritime transport companies, or were
owned by seaport-related enterprises such as transhipment companies. However, a
substantial part of the Dutch fleet was in fact wholly or partially owned by German
companies, most of the time subsidiaries of German coal shippers, the Kohlenkontor or
large German industrial companies. In Belgium, like in Germany, the large shipping
companies were most important, while in France private shipping companies were
virtually non-existent.31 Until after the war, France had not been active in Rhine shipping.
The river from Mannheim to the south was hard to navigate and anyway, since 1871 until
1919 Alsace-Lorrain was German. As part of the reparations payments however, it
received a large number of different types of Rhine barges and tugboats. From its total
available tonnage of 2.2 million tonnes, Germany had to surrender a total of about
360.000 tonnes to the French. From the available tugboats, almost 14 per cent had to be
handed over. These ships were divided over six newly founded shipping companies that
were strictly coordinated by the French Republic.32 The Rhine barges from these four
countries were the most active in Rhine shipping, and where almost exclusively used for
transporting bulk goods. Only about 3 per cent of Rhine traffic consisted of
merchandise.33
30
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 52.
Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 74, 80.
32
Jolmes, Geschichte der Unternehmungen, 79-80.
33
Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 118.
31
213
Jeroen Euwe 5
5.3
Transport within Germany
Germany had a few major centres for the transport of goods. The western and southern
centres were respectively the Ruhr area – parts of Westphalia and the Rhine province,
from Rheinhausen to Walsum – and Mannheim, both situated along the Rhine, a third
centre was greater Berlin and further it had the closely clustered ports on the North Sea –
primarily Hamburg, and to a lesser extent Bremen and Emden. The North Sea ports of
Bremen and Emden handled goods from mostly the Ruhr area and southern Germany,
while Hamburg also handled goods from eastern Germany by way of Berlin.34 Already
before the war, railways were the predominant mode of transport for both mixed, as well
as bulk goods. Both in rail transport and inland shipping, coal was most important,
followed by building materials such as soil, bricks, stone, and cement. Nevertheless, there
were some notable differences. Inland shipping was geared more toward transporting
ores, while iron and steel showed a tendency towards transportation by rail. 35
The importance of the Rhine relative to other inland waterways and vis-à-vis
railway transport is shown in table 5.1. It shows the total transported tonnage and the
percentage share of railway transport and inland shipping – including the share of Rhine
shipping – in the total transport of goods in Germany. Disregarding the data for the period
1919-1923 because of a lack of reliable data and the economic turmoil of the era, during
the period 1924-1933 inland shipping accounted for – on average – 20 per cent of all
transported goods (Table 5.1, column ‘Inland shipping in percentage of total traffic’). At
this time, road transport was still negligible. Of all inland shipping, over two-thirds
consisted of Rhine traffic.36 Compared to the pre-war situation, at first glance the postwar economic recovery and the resultant growth of transport, especially inland shipping,
seems to have been slow.37 There are, however, a number of factors that should be taken
into account. One should be aware that a substantial part of this regression was due to a
change in the usage of raw materials. For instance, the iron ore that was used after the
war was of significantly higher quality, than the ore from before 1914 and the average
kali-content of kali-salts in 1925 was over 28 per cent, versus less than 22 per cent in
34
E. Tiessen, Seehafenverkehr und Binnenschiffahrt im Deutschen Reich, 1913 und 1922 (Berlin 1925).
Napp-Zinn, Binnenschiffahrt und Eisenbahn, 33-34.
36
Own calculations, based on the information in table 5.1.
37
Data for the post-war German geography to minimize the impact of the loss of Upper-Silesia and the Saar region on
Germany’s economic structure.
35
214
Jeroen Euwe 5
1913. Additionally, more coal was processed into higher-grade coal products on-site. As
far as transportation is concerned, the lower tonnage of goods being transported in the
first half of the 1920s, until 1927, is therefore not an entirely reliable indicator for
economic activity, since the value of many transported goods was significantly higher than
it was prior to the war.38
Table 5.1: Total transport of goods in Germany by rail and inland shipping, compared to Rhine
traffic, 1913, 1919-1931.
In percentages of total traffic
In million tonnes
Year
1913
1920
1921
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
Inland
shipping
97.0
44.7
42.1
59.3
34.5
71.6
86.5
102.3
111.5
107.8
110.7
105.2
86.9
Railways*
445
337
n.a.
405
246
271
395
415
467
462
466
381
310
Total
traffic
542.0
381.7
n.a.
464.3
280.5
342.6
481.5
517.3
578.5
569.8
576.7
486.2
396.9
Rhine
shipping
54.6
27.7
26.7
37.2
16.5
47.1
57.7
69.5
76.2
71.7
74.9
70.8
60.0
Inland
shipping
17.9
11.7
n.a
12.8
12.3
20.9
18.0
19.8
19.3
18.9
19.2
21.6
21.9
Railways
82.1
88.3
n.a.
87.2
87.7
79.1
82.0
80.2
80.7
81.1
80.8
78.4
78.1
Rhine
shipping
10.1
7.2
n.a.
8.0
5.9
13.7
12.0
13.4
13.2
12.6
13.0
14.6
15.1
Share
Rhine in
inland
shipping
56.2
61.9
63.5
62.7
47.9
65.7
66.7
67.9
68.3
66.6
67.7
67.3
69.0
Sources: Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Berichten der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt im
Jahre (1920-1933) (Strasbourg 1921-1934); Statistisches Reichsamt, Verkehr der deutschen Binnenwasserstraßen im
Jahre 1926 (Berlin 1927); Statistisches Reichsamt, Die binnenschiffahrt im Jahre 1932 (Berlin 1933); Statistisches
Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen im Jahre 1924-1927 (Berlin 1925-1928); Own calculations.
* Data for 1922 are estimates. Data for 1923 are incomplete due to the occupation of the Ruhr. All data pertaining to
the post-war geography of Germany.
Other contributory factors may have been the handing over of an appreciable number of
German barges and tugboats to France and Belgium as part of the reparations stipulated
in the Treaty of Versailles, and the reinstatement in December 1920 of Staffeltarife,
special rates for rail transport over longer distances.39 These special rates had already
existed before the war, but had never been used on such a large scale.40 By 1922, railway
38
W. Teubert, ‘Der Güterverkehr und seine Veränderungen in der Nachkriegszeit.’ Sonderheft 5, Vierteljahrshefte zur
Konjunkturforschung (Berlin 1928) 30-36.
39
W. Teubert, ‘Der Güterverkehr, Entwicklung und Aussichten.’ Sonderheft 33, Vierteljahrshefte zur
Konjunkturforschung (Berlin 1933) 7-8.
40
Napp-Zinn, Binnenschiffahrt und Eisenbahn, 25, 110-111; Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 94.
215
Jeroen Euwe 5
transport was at 90 per cent of its pre-war level, while inland shipping was barely over 60
per cent (Table 5.1). A year later, the recovery was cut short by the occupation of the Ruhr
by French and Belgian forces, and the resulting financial, economic and political crisis.
After the Ruhr crisis, it was inland shipping that recovered soonest due to the great rise in
Rhine shipping. By 1925, Rhine shipping surpassed the level it had in 1913, followed by
inland shipping the next year. Railway transport, however, would only do so in 1927.
Given that the majority of German exports were industrial products, including coal, and
the centre of gravity in Rhine shipping was the Ruhr area, the Ruhr industry and Ruhr
mining were obviously the driving forces in the German post-war economic recovery.
Interestingly after 1927, transport started to decline again, which supports the idea that
the German economic downturn started before the Wall Street Crash of October 1929
(see chapter 3).
Table 5.2: The share of the Ruhr in total German railway traffic and in exports and imports by
railway. In percentages of tonnage, 1913, 1922-1931.41
Inland traffic
Year
1913
1922
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
Outgoing
n.a.
Trade
Incoming
n.a.
22
6
14
25
25
26
24
26
24
24
Exports
18
7
11
20
20
20
18
19
18
17
Imports
31
37
3
18
46
52
49
45
48
42
37
10
11
2
2
7
5
10
11
11
9
6
Sources: Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen [1924-1931] (Berlin 1926-1932); Own
calculations. Data for the period 1919-1921 are unavailable.
An analysis on the basis of the total tonnage of transported goods does not take into
account the distance these goods covered. As a result, it affords only a partial view of the
actual flow of goods. In transport analysis, this problem is solved by using the
ton/kilometre – the product of weight and distance, abbreviated as t/km – as a unit of
41
The Ruhr consists of the Bezirke 22 (Ruhrgebiet in Westfalen), 23 (Ruhrgebiet in der Rheinprovinz), and 28 (Duisburg,
Ruhrort, Hochfeld).
216
Jeroen Euwe 5
measurement.42 This approach is used here merely as a complementary mode of analysis
of inland transportation, since – although it provides insight into the density of traffic
flows – the ton/kilometre obscures the actual tonnage of goods that were sent from point
A to point B. When represented in ton-kilometre, the 1913 share of inland shipping in
total transport increases from 18 per cent based on tonnage alone to 27 per cent. When
comparing transport in 1913 and 1925, it is found that in both years 18 per cent of all
goods were transported by inland shipping. In 1925 the actual flow of traffic by inland
waterways measured in ton/kilometres had, however, decreased to 24 per cent.43 Railway
freights were therefore transported a greater distance than before the war.
According to the same approach, in 1925 36 per cent of the traffic flows in
Germany were the result of foreign trade, with 94 per cent of this traffic being in the
Rhine and Ems-Weser area. Almost three-quarters of the entire flow of traffic by inland
shipping was generated here, making it – as far as inland shipping was concerned – the
transport hub of Germany, especially for foreign trade.44 Unfortunately, as a result of a
lack of data it is as yet impossible to apply this method of analysis to pinpoint the exact
share of the Rhine itself, and particularly the different stretches of the Rhine, in this
traffic. Therefore, the importance of the Ruhr area will need to be ascertained by its share
in the total tonnage of transported goods and in ship movements. As this was Germany’s
main industrial centre, it is not surprising that the Ruhr area should be the centre of
gravity for transport both by railways and inland shipping. Transport by rail amply
demonstrates the importance of the Ruhr industries: between 1925 and 1929 from 22 to
24 per cent of all railway transport was either destined for, or originated in the Ruhr
industrial area (Table 5.2).45 Even more significant is that during the same period between
46 and 52 per cent of all German exports by rail originated in the Ruhr.
42
Oskar Teubert, Die Binnenschiffahrt. Ein Handbuch für alle Beteiligten (Leipzig 1918) 634.
Napp-Zinn, Binnenschiffahrt und Eisenbahn, 28.
44
Napp-Zinn, Binnenschiffahrt und Eisenbahn, 31; Own calculations.
45
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen [1925-1929] (Berlin 1926-1930; Own
calculations.
43
217
Jeroen Euwe 5
Sources: Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt
[1919-1933], (Strasbourg [1920-1934]); Statistischen Reichsamt, Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Verkehr der deutschen
Binnenwasserstraßen [1919-1933] (Berlin [1920-1934]); Own calculations.
The Lower Rhine ends at Leverkusen, the Middle Rhine stretches from Cologne to Oberlahnstein, and the Upper Rhine
from Bingen to Basel. What are colloquially known as the Ruhr ports along the Rhine are the ports of Walsum up to
Rheinhausen. By far the most import of these ports was and is Ruhrort.
Graph 5.2 shows the development of shipping movements in the regions along the upper,
middle, and lower Rhine, with the Ruhr area – part of the lower Rhine area – depicted
separately. Rhine traffic, itself such an important part of Germany’s transportation of
imports and exports, concentrated on the Ruhr. More specifically: exports from the Ruhr
ports made up the major part of shipping downstream, while imports via the Rhine were
more evenly spread along the Rhine up to Mannheim and Ludwigshafen on the Upper
Rhine. Shipping from the Ruhr ports – the most important of which were Rheinhausen,
Duisburg-Ruhrort, Homberg and Walsum-Schwelgern – was mostly downstream. Only
one-third of the traffic of these ports went in upstream direction.46 Ruhr imports
consisted predominantly of iron ore, cereal and wood, while coal, pig iron and processed
iron – such as steel – were dominant in exports (Table 5.3). In both inland shipping and
46
Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 117; Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der
Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt [1919-1933], (Strasbourg [1920-1934]); Own calculations.
218
Jeroen Euwe 5
railway transport, the Ruhr was thus the transport hub through which Germany
conducted its internal and international transport. With regards to international
transport, there was still a choice to be made between the mode of transport – barge or
train – and between a number of seaports – predominantly between Rotterdam,
Antwerp, Hamburg or Bremen.
Table 5.3: Traffic of bulk goods in the Ruhr ports, 1922-1928. In thousand tonnes.
I. Iron ore1
II. Grain2
III. Wood
Year Incoming Outgoing Total Incoming Outgoing Total Incoming Outgoing Total
1922
6053
742 6794
233
33
266
121
20
141
1923
1922
44 1966
93
8
101
49
1
51
1924
6167
6167
375
375
247
247
1925
8347
8347
397
397
326
326
1926
8060
8060
467
467
270
270
1927
12392
12416
427
428
392
398
1928
8354
1545 9920
303
18
322
346
135
482
3
IV. Coal
V. Pig iron/processed iron
Year Incoming Outgoing Total Incoming Outgoing Total
1922
587
7525 8112
220
719
939
1923
450
2195 2644
140
642
782
1924
18229 18229
1777 1777
1925
20331 20331
1947 1947
1926
26360 26360
2884 2884
1927
20198 20569
2437 2514
1928
4685
12183 17161
274
2233 2587
Sources: Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt
[1919-1933], (Strasbourg [1920-1934]).
1) Iron ore, manganese, pyrite and slag for use in smelting.
2) Grain, corn, wheat, cereal, rye, oats, barley, maize.
3) Including coal briquettes and cokes.
219
Jeroen Euwe 5
5.4
Transport within the Netherlands
‘In spite of the fact that in the Netherlands transportation by waterway is one of the most
important means of transport, until now little is known on the subject, the Dutch official
statistical office, Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS) admitted in 1933.47 In contrast
to the detail with which its German counterpart, the Statistisches Reichsamt, recorded
and published the movement of goods throughout Germany as well as its imports, exports
and transit traffic, the CBS published little detailed records. As a result, so far it has proven
to be impossible to assess the total volume of transport by all modes of transport in the
Netherlands. However, ton/kilometric data for the flow of inland shipping in the
Netherlands and its provinces do exist, albeit only for the period 1912-1913 and 19171924.48 The province of Gelderland – through which the Rhine flows from Germany –
accounted for almost 47 per cent of all water-borne traffic in the Netherlands in the
period 1923-1924.49 Given the very limited port activity in this province – Nijmegen was
river port in the region of any significance (Table 5.4) –, this means that almost half of
Dutch inland shipping was with the German, French or Swiss Rhine. Data for shipping
movements in the German, French and Swiss ports shows that Dutch shipping was
predominantly to and from the Ruhr, or to be more precise: Duisburg-Ruhrort.50
Most of this traffic was mass freight – predominantly coal and ores, but also raw
materials for the chemical industry and the paper industry for example.51 For such
freights the port of Rotterdam handled most of the transhipment, with Amsterdam as a
distant second (Table 5.4). Amsterdam was more important in the transhipment of
merchandise, but here Antwerp was by far the more important port.52 Like inland
shipping, railway transport to and from Germany was for the most part freight to and
from the Ruhr. In 1924, of all outgoing Dutch international railway traffic, 18 per cent was
transported to the Ruhr, while 56 per cent of incoming railway freight originated in the
47
CBS, Mededeeling Afdeeling handelsstatistiek, No.1, 11 December 1933.
J.C. Ramaer, ‘Het goederenverkeer in Nederland in de laatste jaren.’ Tijdschrift van het Koninklijk Nederlandsch
Aardrijkskundig Genootschap. Tweede reeks dl. XLIII, No.3 (mei 1926) 331-392. The existence of data for t/km per
province indicates that the underlying data to reconstruct the flow of traffic by inland shipping should be available.
49
Ibidem 386 (appendix VIII).
50
Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt [19191933], (Strasbourg [1920-1934]); Own calculations.
51
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 34.
52
Ibidem 8.
48
220
Jeroen Euwe 5
Table 5.4: Transport of goods of the most important Dutch and Belgian ports with the German, French and Swiss Rhine, 1919-1931. In thousands of tonnes.
Dutch Ports:
Nijmegen
Dordrecht
Vlaardingen
Rotterdam
Amsterdam
All Dutch ports
1919
18
160
n.a.
3,526
449
5,033
1920
63
186
n.a.
6501
597
9,185
1921
36
159
n.a.
8,777
643
11,583
1922
55
163
n.a.
11,595
916
15,650
1923
50
131
378
7,445
496
9,844
1924
102
194
1,506
18,704
1,635
25,287
1925
85
243
1,776
22,845
1,962
31,207
1926
116
260
1,805
32,402
2,405
41,999
1927
120
202
2,456
33,268
2,300
43,507
1928
134
245
2,415
29,706
2,453
40,365
1929
152
228
2,291
32,886
2,654
43,539
1931
130
409
1,386
21,630
2,098
31,949
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
1,190
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
4,076
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
4,626
n.a.
n.a.
n.a.
4,665
1,406
211
270
2,241
3,941
688
304
6,491
4,728
1,278
148
8,261
6,028
1,563
203
9,737
5,737
1,594
220
10,310
5,402
923
206
9,046
4,435
1,866
263
9,307
5,219
2,052
623
9,492
Belgian ports:
Antwerp
Ghent
Brussels
All Belg. ports
Sources: Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt [1919-1931], (Strasbourg [1920-1932]); Own calculations.
222
Jeroen Euwe 5
Ruhr.53 As the German economy recovered, in just two years these percentages would
rise to 28 and 71 per cent respectively. The bonds with the extended Ruhr-area –
Westphalia and especially the Rheinprovinz – also became increasingly strong, as by 1926
it was responsible for 67 per cent of all incoming, and 89 per cent of all outgoing railway
traffic from and to Germany. In spite of the enormous growth of the flow of goods
transported by way of the Netherlands to and from Germany, railway traffic remained
fairly stable although it shifted more and more towards the Ruhr and the part of the
Rheinprovinz that lies left of the Rhine. Especially Rhine shipping profited from the growth
in transport, as in merely three years Rhine traffic from Germany increased sevenfold,
while overall traffic to Germany just doubled (Graph 5.3).54 As much as the Ruhr was the
transport hub for – and destination within – Germany, it was the destination for both
Dutch Rhine shipping and railway freight.
Sources: CBS, Jaarstatistiek van den in-, uit-, en doorvoer over [1919-1933] (Then Hague 1920-1934); Own calculations.
53
54
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen im Jahre 1924; Own calculations.
CBS, Jaarstatistiek voor de In-, Uit-, en Doorvoer [1923-1926], 16; Own calculations.
223
Jeroen Euwe 5
5.5
Competition between modes of transport
The only relevant competition between modes of transport during this period was that
between the railways and inland shipping. Although in relative terms large-scale road
transport showed an explosive growth – between 1913 and 1925 the number of trucks in
Germany grew with some 50.000 units, and by 1925 just over 2 per cent of total transport
of goods in that country was transported by road – the sector was still in its infancy.55
Anyway, most road transport was local. Therefore, its importance in international
transport was even less. In the same year, 1925, less than one per cent of all transport
between the Netherlands and Germany was sent by road.56 Likewise, air transport was in
its infancy. It was only by the end of the 1920s that small quantities of flower bulbs and
vegetables would be transported by air. However, competition between railways and
inland shipping was fierce, and greatly influenced by national transport policies.
Transport policy
Since its inception in 1815, the Central Commission for Navigation of the Rhine has been
more of an administrative rather than a political entity, whose main function was to
ensure regulation of the Rhine and the laws governing shipping. With the Act of
Mannheim of 1868, when the member states of the Commission removed all tolls from
Rhine transport, it opened the door to mass transport along the Rhine. Since then, only
during World War I and a short period after that disaster, tolls had only been
reintroduced, and not just on the Rhine, but on all German inland traffic. In the autumn of
1919, these taxes were rescinded for the Rhine and Elbe, again under severe pressure
from the Inter-allied Commission.57
At the Peace Conference in Paris (Versailles), France – once again bordering the
Rhine as it regained Alsace-Lorain, and thus again a member of the Rhine Commission –
vied for control over the Rhine, trying to gain control of both banks of the river and
planning modifications of the Act of Mannheim without so much as informing the Dutch.
Its efforts were thwarted by a proposal to enlarge the membership of the Commission to
55
Teubert, Der Güterverkehr und seine Veränderungen in der Nachkriegszeit, 43; Own calculations.
CBS, Jaarstatistiek voor de In-, Uit-, en Doorvoer 1925, 16; Own calculations.
57
Nationaal Archief 2.05.37 Inv.nr. 893 Gezantschap der Nederlanden, Handelsafdeling, to the Directie van Economische
Zaken van het Ministerie van Buitenlandsche Zaken, 28-1-1921; Nationaal Archief 2.05.37 Inv.nr. 893 Gezantschap der
Nederlanden, Handels- en Transportmaatschappij “Vulcaan” Rotterdam to Van Eysinga, 28-7-1921.
56
224
Jeroen Euwe 5
include non-Rhine countries, which France accepted. The projected new Commission
would include Switzerland, France, Germany and the Netherlands, as well as Belgium,
Great Britain, Italy and the United States. Soon after, the United States opted out of the
Rhine commission, as the American policy reoriented away from Europe. Nonetheless,
with the expansion of the commission, its former distribution of power changed in favour
of the members of the Entente. However, given that the interests of the members were
not very far apart and most regulation by the Central Commission on Navigation in the
Rhine had a rather technical character, nothing much changed in matters that concerned
transport along the River.58
Nevertheless, transport policy did play a major role in Western European traffic
during the 1920s. All four major countries along the Rhine employed measures to attract
to their seaports the largest possible amount of traffic. Because of the measures taken to
promote these ports, this led in turn to a stronger competition between inland (Rhine)
shipping and railway transport. In Belgium the Tarifs des ports de mer – seaport rates –
were used to direct Belgian exports to rail transport and Belgian seaports, while the
Transit-Barême – transit charging regime – was destined for transit traffic from Belgian
seaports.59 In 1923 France lowered railway tariffs for transit traffic from its own seaports,
such as Nantes and Le Havre, to Germany.60 The Netherlands employed a different
system: when traffic exceeded 15,000 tonnes per year, a 10 per cent rebate was given at
the end of the year, for traffic exceeding 80,000 tonnes, 20 per cent.61
Whether these ways of attracting traffic was effective, is open to debate. A
comparison of the development of these countries’ railway transport to and from
Germany shows that, apart from exports to France, traffic with the Netherlands was
significantly more important than traffic with either Belgium or France (Graph 5.4). Yet
there are too many variables influencing this traffic – the payment of reparations in kind
to France and Belgium in 1923-1924, political complications such as the Ruhr occupation –
to draw definite conclusions. What these measures did not manage – at least not in the
58
W.J.M. van Eysinga, La Commission Centrale pour la Navigation du Rhin (Leyden 1935) 107-135. For an organization as
unique as the CCNR, the oldest supranational organization in the world, literature on its history, judiciary and policies is
remarkably scarce.
59
Warsch, Antwerpen, Rotterdam, 37-38.
60
Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt [1923,
Strasbourg 1923 (Strasbourg 1924) 75.
61
Warsch, Antwerpen, Rotterdam, 37-38.
225
Jeroen Euwe 5
case of the Netherlands – was to direct much traffic from Rhine shipping to railway
transport. Railway transport showed only a very slight growth while Rhine shipping
multiplied (Table 5.1, Graph 5.3). The share of the railways in freight traffic between the
Netherlands and Germany dropped from 30 per cent in 1919 to just over 9 per cent in
1925, and would continue to be around 9 per cent throughout the remainder of the 1920s
and the early 30s.62
Sources: Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen [1924-1927] (Berlin 1926-1930); Own
calculations.
The German Seehafenausnahmetarife
Unlike the French surtaxes and the Belgian special railway rates, the special tariffs that
were introduced in Germany did cause considerable political tension between the
Netherlands and Germany. Prior to the war, three such tariffs were in force: Staffeltarife –
graduated tariffs –, Wasserumschlagtarife – water transhipment tariffs –, and
Seehafenausnahmetarife – special seaport tariffs. The Staffeltarife were used by the
Prussian railways, and offered decreasing cost as the distance of transportation increased.
For every 100 km after the first 100, cost diminished progressively. As a result, transport
62
CBS, Jaarstatistiek voor de In-, Uit-, en Doorvoer [1919 -1924], 16; Own calculations.
226
Jeroen Euwe 5
costs per kilometre from, for instance, Munich to Hamburg – an 810 km stretch – were
64.5 per cent lower than the costs per kilometre on a shorter track.63 This could
potentially reduce the amount of transhipments between inland shipping and the
railways, because in cases were transport was done first by rail and then by barge or vice
versa, the reduced rates were often cheaper than the combined rates of rail, barge, and
the transhipment of the cargo. To alleviate this, this kind of transhipment was also
granted a reduced cost: a special Wasserumschlagstarif. As before the war, these
Staffeltarife were only used in special cases and for just a few arbitrarily selected
commodities, they never had many consequences for actual transport.64 When in 1920
the German railways were united in the Reichsbahn, the Staffeltarife were restored for a
number of commodities.65 The Wasserumschlagstarife however, were not. As a result,
inland shipping had a setback that even became worse when two years later, Staffeltarife
were applied to all types of commodities.66
Even though these special tarfiffs were not specifically intended to promote traffic
to and from the German seaports, the Staffeltarife were used in advertising by the
Hamburg port to attract freight from the Ruhr. Misleading statements were not shunned,
reported the Dutch consul in Duisburg-Ruhrort in December 1921. In a folder sent to
exporters and importers the cost of sending goods via Hamburg was compared to the
costs of sending them via Rotterdam and Antwerp. Naturally, Hamburg was noticeably
cheaper. The reason was, however, that for transport by way of Rotterdam the cost of
railway transport was used, instead of the costs by Rhine shipping. A corrected
specification showed that even with the Staffeltarife, routing traffic through Rotterdam
was still the cheaper option.67
On the first of March 1924, Seehafenausnahmetarife were re-introduced. Unlike
the Staffeltarife, these tariffs were aimed at diverting very specific traffic at extremely low
freight costs along specific routes to the German seaports, thereby reducing Germany’s
dependence on foreign seaports and in passing aiding the economic development of
63
J. Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife tijdens de Weimarrepubliek 1919-1933.’ In: Joh. De Vries,
Ondernemende geschiedenis: 22 opstellen geschreven bij het afscheid van Mr. H. van Riel als voorzitter van de
Vereniging het Nederlandsch Economisch-Historisch Archief (The Hague 1977) 321-343, here 322.
64
Napp-Zinn, Binnenschiffahrt und Eisenbahn, 25, 110-111; Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 104.
65
‘De Duitse Spoorwegtarieven.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 14 July 1927.
66
Napp-Zinn, Binnenschiffahrt und Eisenbahn, 110.
67
NL-HaNa, BuZa , Economische Zaken, 2.05.37 inv.nr.875, 12 December 1921, Report by the Dutch consul in DuisburgRuhrort.
227
Jeroen Euwe 5
these ports. Whereas before the war the negative effects of the special railway tariffs on
inland shipping had been tempered by the Wasserumschlagstarife, these were not reintroduced.68 Moreover, the reduction in costs was now even greater.69 Because of the
stipulations in the Treaty of Versailles, Germany was obligated to unilaterally grant the
same reductions to Belgian and French ports at their request. As a consequence, by
December 1924, Belgium received a number of special tariffs.70 These tariffs were for
specific goods and for specific German railway stations that were located some 100 km
from the Belgian border.71 By that time, negotiations with the Dutch had been under way
for some ten months. These negotiations bore more than a passing resemblance to those
for the Dutch-German trade agreement, although they were done through a number of
separate channels, and involved different negotiators, who oftentimes were unaware of
what others were doing.
In March 1924, talks by the Dutch railways with the German Ministry for Transport
– the Reichsverkehrsministerium – led to talks between the Dutch and German railways
companies in Cologne. Even though Geheimrat Karl Ritter of the economic department of
the German Foreign Office declared that Berlin was willing to accommodate the Dutch
wishes, and the Dutch envoy in Berlin Baron Gevers was told to approach the government
on the matter, nothing was decided. Two months later, on 26 May, S. de Vries, the Dutch
representative in the Dutch-German supervisory Board of the Tredefina-credit visited
Berlin. C.J.K. van Aalst, one of the most influential Dutch businessman and president of
Nederlandsche Handelmaatschappij, an important commercial bank, told De Vries about
the Ausnahmetarife, and he was also warned about this problem by the Mendelssohn
Bank – one of the more influential German banks in Amsterdam. Thereupon, he raised the
issue in his discussions with the Treuhandgesellschaft – Trust Company. By suggesting that
these Ausnahmetarife could be detrimental to the Dutch credits, he thought to intimate
his German counterparts. As he was told, that envoy Gevers had also brought up the
matter with the German government, he discussed the matter with this Dutch diplomat,
68
Verseput, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 66; Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 105,
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 94.
69
Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt [1923,
Strasbourg 1928 (Strasbourg 1929), 59-60.
70
BArch R 3101/2741 fol.3 Note for Geheimrat Waldeck, 28-11-1924; Van Lier, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken
voor Rotterdam, 1803-1928, 880.
71
Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife,’ 323.
228
Jeroen Euwe 5
who told De Vries that the German government had immediately after his interference
had declared their willingness to prevent any damage to Dutch interests, and had
proposed to instate a committee of experts to design a mutually agreeable
arrangement.72 It seemed, however, that nothing was done after this, and a mere three
weeks later the Dutch government, under pressure of Dutch interests to strive for a
complete abolishment of the German special tariffs, sent a letter to Berlin, stating that the
matter ‘was threatening to cast a shadow on the relations between the two countries.’ 73
A month later, after another meeting, this time in Utrecht, between representatives of
the Dutch railways and of the Reich Ministry of Transport, the Cologne Railway
Directorate and the German Foreign Office, it was thought that all had been settled to the
satisfaction of the Dutch. Nothing had been signed, however, and by September the
Germans made it clear that the Dutch would not be granted all they wanted, as that
would harm the interests of the Reichsbahn.74
In that same month, September 1924, there were negotiations about the part of
the Coal and Credit Treaty of 1920 that was to be used by the German government for the
purchase of Dutch foodstuffs. In the treaty, the Dutch had assumed that the German food
shortage would be temporary, and that the credit would therefore end long before the
German compensation – and collateral – for the credit, monthly coal deliveries, would
stop. By now, the German obligation no longer existed, but the Germans still had a right
to the credit. The Dutch somewhat haughtily glossed over their error and during the talks
the Dutch government let it be known, that it was willing to let the Germans have the
remainder of the credit if the Dutch ports would no longer be subordinated to the
German ports. While pointing out that they were within their rights to make use of the
credit, the Germans promised that when the Belgian tariffs were introduced, the Dutch
would be granted the same tariffs and on the same conditions. The introduction of these
tariffs for both countries would be as soon as it was technically possible.75 To the Dutch,
this was not enough. They wanted equality with the German ports, and besides, the
72
NL-HaNa, Financiën/Dossierarchief, 2.08.41 inv.nr. 1411, De Vries to the Minister of Finance, 26 Mei 1924; NL-HaNa,
Commissie Nederlands-Duits Kredietverdrag, 2.08.26, inv.nr.12 Letter by De Vries to Van Aalst, 14-4-1924; Ibidem,
Response by Van Aalst to De Vries, 23-4-1924; NL-HaNa, Financiën/Dossierarchief, 2.08.41 inv.nr. 1411, Response by De
Vries to Van Aalst, 25-4-1924.
73
Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife,’ 326.
74
Ibidem 326-7.
75
NL-HaNa, Financiën/Dossierarchief, 2.08.41 inv.nr.1411 Aufzeichnung.
229
Jeroen Euwe 5
Belgian tariffs would only be granted up to stations that were some 100 km from the
border. If the same conditions were to apply to the Dutch, almost the entire Ruhr area –
responsible for most of Dutch-German railway transport – would not be included in the
lower transport tariffs.76
At a dinner at the Dutch legation in Berlin, A.M. Snouck-Hurgronje – the Secretary
General of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, took the opportunity to discuss the
matter with Geheimrat Ritter and State Secretary Ago Freiherr von Maltzan, both of the
Auswärtiges Amt. Ritter declared that Germany would be willing to grant the tariffs right
up to the border, but only if the Belgians requested this. As of yet, they had not done so.
Now, Snouck-Hurgronje used the tactic that a few months later the Dutch negotiators for
the trade agreement decided should not be used, stating that he did not understand ‘how
Germany, after all we had done, did not feel the moral obligation to spare us this
disadvantage.’ Ritter replied he was legally in the right, upon which Snouck Hurgronje
countered, that this was not what this was about. At this point Maltzan agreed with
Snouck Hurgronje, and the Dutch diplomat had the impression that that the Netherlands
might get it its way.77 In the end, the German government would not concede to the
Dutch demand to be treated equally to the German ports. Even though the Germans were
legally entitled to make use of the food credit until 1929, the credit remained blocked.78
At the end of November 1924, the Board of Directors of the Reichsbahn decided to
grant Belgium, but not the Dutch, the reduced tariffs Brussels had requested. The Dutch
showed no longer any interest, but should the Dutch protest against this discrimination,
the president of the Reichsbahn was authorized to grant the requested special tariffs.
Baron Gevers did indeed come back to it, and the matter was reopened.79 As of January
1925, the Netherlands received some, but not all of the tariffs that had been granted to
the Belgians. According to the Hamburg Regierungsdirektor – Government Official – Kurt
Giese, these were granted merely in the interest of good relations with a friendly state.
Given that the Germans had been treated rather unfairly just a few months earlier, this
was an act of some benevolence, albeit that these tariffs did not include the important
76
Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife,’ 328.
Nationaal Archief 2.05.25 inv.nr.43, Undate [End of September 1924] Private note by Snouck Hurgronje (SecretaryGeneral Foreign Affairs) to Van Karnebeek
78
Jonker, ‘Koopman op een dwaalspoor’, 190.
79
BArch R 3101/2741 fol.3 Note, 28-11-1924.
77
230
Jeroen Euwe 5
rates for glass, paper, iron and steel, and were limited to a fewer number of railway
stations.80
By February, the Dutch had a more realistic view of what could be achieved. From
now on, the goal would be to ratify the agreement reached between the Dutch and
German railways at Utrecht the year before. If that would be impossible, then they would
strive for equality with Belgium. What the Dutch viewed as an agreement, were actually
minutes of a meeting at which the Germans had made no actual commitments. Dutch
goals now shifted to gaining the same privileges as the Belgians enjoyed. As this was
exactly what the German had offered earlier, matters should have been resolved quickly.
However, the Foreign Office decided it wanted the reductions that had been agreed to at
the meeting of the Dutch and German railways last summer, even though the agreement
had never been signed. At that point, the chairman of the Amsterdam Chamber of
Commerce and Industry Ernest Heldring became involved. Heldring was an influential
man, and visited Foreign minister H.A. van Karnebeek on 26 May 1925, to inform why no
progress had been made. He left as an advisor of the minister, with the order to consult
the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce and the Dutch railways whether to accept the
German offer or to hold out for more.81
Upon hearing that G.M. Vissering as president of the Nederlandsche Bank was also
disgruntled about the German attitude, and was thinking of limiting the flow of
acceptance credits to Germany, Heldring decided to pay him a visit as well.82 The result
was a meeting on June, 9, 1925 with the acceptance banks, where it was decided to send
a memo to these banks about the German position, announcing the possible limiting of
acceptance credit and cautioning the banks to be reticent in granting loans. 83 In a public
assembly of the Amsterdam Chamber of Commerce and Industry on the 16th, Heldring
called on those who had financial dealings with the Germans to be reserved in granting
further credit.84
80
‘Aantekeningen. De zeehavenuitzonderingstarieven der Duitsche Spoorwegen; het Duitsche standpunt.’ Economisch
Statistische Berichten, 10-3-1926, 235-237; Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife,’ 329; Jonker,
‘Koopman op een dwaalspoor,’ 190.
81
Heldring, Herinneringen en Dagboek, 603-605. Entry 26 Mei 1925, 603.
82
DNB 8/1501/2 Visit Heldring to Vissering, Monday 8 Juni 1925; Heldring, Herinneringen en Dagboek, 605-607. Entry 6
June 1925.
83
DNB 8/1501/2 Overleg DNB met de acceptmaatschappijen, Dinsdag 9 Juni 1925.
84
See: Heldring, Herinneringen en Dagboek, 603, footnote 1.
231
Jeroen Euwe 5
In Germany, the news caused great concern and Foreign Minister Gustav
Stresemann even wrote in his diary: ‘On top of that, there are big troubles with the
Netherlands, that complains to be discriminated in favour of Belgium. In Holland, bank
circles now threaten with withdrawing loans from Germany if we go on with treating
Holland unfriendly. Would it really come to a cancellation of the Dutch credits, than it
would cause a similar industrial collapse with us, as we had in the years after the
foundation of the German Reich’.85 The concern was tempered, however, by the
knowledge that at that time the Dutch credits were in the financial and business interest
of the Dutch themselves as well. Both the president of the Reichsbank, Hjalmar Schacht,
and the interest groups of the German North Sea ports lost no time to make that clear.86
As a consequence, Berlin concluded that they could safely stand their ground, and did so.
In August 1925, Vissering travelled to Berlin again, where he was wined and dined on the
highest level and met with his future colleague as central bank president Reichskanzler
Hans Luther, with Reich Minister of Economics Albert Neuhaus, Reich Foreign Minister
Gustav Stresemann and of course his colleague Reichsbankpräsident Hjalmar Schacht, as
well as many other influential Germans. Although he was given every chance to explain
the Dutch position, the Germans did not budge, however.87
It was only when in November 1925 the Dutch-German Douane- en Kredietverdrag
– Customs and Credit Treaty – was signed, that Marckwald, head of the German
delegation, informed his Dutch counterpart J.A. Nederbragt that within a short period of
time, the Dutch would be treated on equal footing as any other country when it came to
preferential transport rates.88 In reply to Nederbragt’s question ‘when?’, Marckwald
answered ‘at a point in the not too distant future – a period of no longer than eight
months’.89 In the end, the Germans thus granted the special railway rates without
contractual obligation, nor asking anything in return. The simple fact was that to them,
Dutch equality with the port of Antwerp was a matter of good business sense. Traffic that
went towards the western ports of Antwerp or Rotterdam would not be sent to the
85
G. Stresemann, Vermächtnis Der Nachlass. Bd. 2, Hrsg. v. H. Bernhard unter Mitarbeit von W. Goetz u. P. Wiegler.
(Berlin 1932-1933), 307-308. Quoted in: Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife,’ 332.
86
BArch R 3101/2741 fol.319, 320 Norddeutscher Lloyd, Bremen, Generaldirektor Stimming to
Reichswirtschaftsminister Neuhaus, Berlin, 25-6-1925.
87
DNB 8/1501/2 Report on Vissering’s visit to Berlin, 10-16 August 1925.
88
BArch R 43 I/88 fol.208 Marckwald to Nederbragt, 26-11-1925.
89
BArch R 43 I/88 fol.209 Marckwald to Nederbragt, 26-11-1925.
232
Jeroen Euwe 5
northern ports in Germany unless rates were lowered even more. Therefore, equality
between Rotterdam and Antwerp was merely fuelling the competition between these
Dutch and Belgian ports. Because of trade negotiations with Italy, the Germans had been
unable to do so earlier, since then the Italians would have wanted similar concessions.
Three weeks later, A. Stricker, head of the department for the Netherlands of the
German Reichsbahn, visited Vissering. The Germans were still eager to appease the Dutch,
and Stricker came to inform him that the railway rates for potash, cement, and ammonia
to Ruhrort had been lowered for the express purpose of routing this traffic over Dutch
ports. Since Dutch railway tariffs were too high, the rates would only apply to Ruhrort,
from where the goods would be sent to Rotterdam by barge. Emphasizing that the
German ports were located more favourably, Stricker told Vissering that ‘from this, the
necessary conclusions can be drawn about the policy of the Reichsbahn with regards to
the Dutch ports’.90 What Stricker failed to mention, was that in Germany, a campaign had
been started against the special railway rates.91 The Länder along the Rhine, and the
industry located there, had significant interests in Rhine shipping, not just because of the
activity in the Rhine ports, but also because they had interests in Rhine shipping
companies. The fact that in 1925 eighteen of such companies had not paid out dividends
was blamed on the special railway rates.92
Despite the German promises about equality with Belgium five months earlier, this
had not happened. When asked about it, it turned out that the Germans – understandably
from their point of view – were waiting for the Dutch to ratify the trade agreement.93
Once this Customs and Credit Treaty had been ratified, the Germans announced that they
would take action: the special rates to Belgium would be rescinded. Baron Gevers was
ordered to contact undersecretary Ritter at the Foreign Office to try and pressure him into
a positive solution, in which Belgium and the Netherlands would both be granted the
same special rates. However, this pressure was limited to a strong emphasis on the
political aspect of the issue, as there was nothing that could be done. Ritter assured
Gevers that during the recently failed negotiations with the Reichsbahn, he had done
90
DNB 8/1501/2 Letter by A. Stricker (Leiter der Verkehrsagentur der Deutschen Reichsbahn-Gesellschaft für die
Niederlande, Generalvertreter der Reichszentrale für Deutsche Verkehrswerbung) to Vissering, 16 Dec.1925.
91
PA AA, R 105.653, Note, 15-1-1926.
92
NA 2.16.23.01 Inv.nr. 2956 Report on the German special tariffs by Thorbecke, Dutch Legation in Berlin. Undated,
attached to a letter dated 16 December 1927.
93
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37 inv.nr.3260 Auswärtiges Amt Berlin to the Dutch legation, 26 April 1926.
233
Jeroen Euwe 5
everything to get them to take a different decision, and intimated that if Gevers had
insisted on such a positive solution before the trade agreement was ratified, things might
have turned out differently. As it was, Ritter could only say that, despite the special
railway rates, Amsterdam and Rotterdam were still developing better than Hamburg or
Bremen.94 The Dutch were still hoping to change the outcome, when on 3 August 1926
Ritter officially informed them that, despite his best efforts, this would not happen.95 On
15 October 1926, Belgium lost the German special railway tariffs. The Netherlands and
Belgium now had equal rights, and were both displeased.
In the literature on Dutch-German relations, there have been two studies on the matter of
the special railway tariffs. In 1977, J. Verseput published a paper tracing the DutchGerman negotiations on the matter in great detail.96 He concluded, that the Germans
would never have granted the Dutch the same railway rates as the Belgians. The failure of
the Dutch diplomacy was thus mostly a result of German intransigence. In 1989, J. Jonker
published a paper in which he expressed his disagreement with this point of view.
According to Jonker, the German position on the issue could ‘only be understood against
the backdrop of the rivalry between the ports of both countries and the position of the
Netherlands as creditor to Germany’.97 It is Jonker’s opinion, that the negotiations were
indeed hampered by Dutch misjudgements and German intransigence. The most
important reason why the Dutch were ultimately unsuccessful Jonker states, is because
they tried to use the temporary Dutch position as creditor to Germany for political gain.
While Jonker was certainly correct in his assessment, some elements do still require
clarification.
What is clear, is that Germany was willing to grant the lower railway tariffs to the
Dutch as well, since this was in their own best interest. That Dutch diplomacy failed, was
in part because of the same reason that the trade negotiations progressed so laboriously:
actions by powerful individuals – Vissering spurred on by Heldring – impeded the Dutch
process. Yet the Dutch Foreign Office itself was also far from clear in what it wanted to
accomplish, and how to go for it. Van Karnebeek’s decision to include the railway tariffs in
94
NA 2.05.36 inv.nr.3260 Gevers to Van Karnebeek, 14-7-1926.
NA 2.05.36 inv.nr.3260 Thorbecke to Van Karnebeek, 3-8-1926
96
Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife.’
97
J. Jonker, ‘Koopman op een dwaalspoor’, 181-2.
95
234
Jeroen Euwe 5
the trade negotiations was in direct contradiction with the tactics that had been laid out
so carefully before the negotiations had started. The decision to let the Dutch railways
sort out the matter with their German colleagues was, considering the failures to
communicate and to sign at least a declaration of intent, not fortuitous, as both Jonker
and Verseput note. That the Dutch would not discuss the matter for considerable, often
inopportune periods of time, may have been part of a larger plan, but in fact was also
unpractical.
Furthermore, the Dutch showed a lack of understanding of the fact that while it
was reasonable to demand equal treatment to another nation, demanding the Dutch
ports to be treated on an equal footing with the German ports was another matter. The
Dutch tried to intervene in the transport policy of another nation, while showing no
comprehension of the economic situation in Germany, of the relation between the
German Reichsbahn and the government, or the pressure brought to bear by interest
groups. Within Germany, there was significant resistance to the tariffs from the western
and southern Länder –states – along the Rhine and even from the Länder from Central
Germany. Industry from these Central German states was having difficulties due to
increased competition from Eastern Europe.98 Nevertheless, their interests were
subordinated to those of the North Sea ports, as was raised by Verseput. It is telling, that
envoy Gevers wrote to his minister Van Karnebeek, that upon being told that the special
rates to Belgium were to be revoked, thereby putting the Netherlands and Germany on an
equal footing: ‘I did not hide from Mr. Ritter my disappointment about the decision, with
which Germany had passed up an easy opportunity to favourably influence the prevailing
discontent in our country.’ With a 17 per cent decrease in incoming traffic from 1926 to
1927, Dutch railways were the only mode of transportation that was declining, albeit far
less than railway transport to Belgium – -36 per cent – or France – -56 per cent.99 Yet
when asked to specify their position on the German railway tariffs in view of the DutchGerman trade negotiations of 1933, the Dutch railways stated that there was nothing
indecent in tariff measures that would lower transport cost of home-grown produce and
98
BArch R 3101/2741 fol.121-123 Letter by Verband der Deutsche Industrie to the Thuringische Ministerium für Inneres
und Wirtschaft and the Reichswirstchaftsministerium, 5-2-1925.
99
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen [1926-1927] (Berlin [1927-1928]); Own
calculations.
235
Jeroen Euwe 5
of products of local industry below the level that was charged to foreign goods. ‘Such
things are done in every country’, they replied.100
The reason for their remarkably balanced view may have been – apart from the fact that
they used similar policies – that, although the precise consequences of these tariffs for the
amount of traffic with the Netherlands are not clear, these consequences do not seem to
have been serious. Germany’s internal and international traffic flows clearly mirror the
economic developments of the era. Inland shipping and especially Rhine shipping
recovered faster than railway transport. Only in 1925 was the share of the railways in the
total German transport equal to that of 1913. In other years, its share was less than it
used to be. Both in absolute and in relative terms, the German policy of special railway
tariffs seems to have been a rational response to the economic circumstances.
Transport data also indicate, that the effect of the lowered railways tariffs was not
as great as stakeholders in Rhine shipping wanted people to believe. When from 1928
transport declined due to the economic downturn in Germany, in spite of further lowering
of the railway tariffs, the share of inland shipping in total transport was still rising.
Incoming Rhine shipping may have declined in comparison to 1926, but that was only
because in 1926 German coal exports had been extraordinarily high due to the strike of
the British coalminers (Graph 5.3). Obviously, the lower cost of railway transport to the
German North Sea ports – which Verseput demonstrated were usually lower than
transport by barge or rail to Rotterdam or Antwerp – was not the decisive factor.101 What
the decisive factors were would be the subject of an interesting study, but does not
concern us here. It is likely, that lower overall port costs due to faster turnaround and
lower shipping cost for sea shipping may have played a role, but in all probability, the
existing business infrastructure – the German investments in Dutch ports and in Dutch
businesses – as well as personal and financial contacts were also important. This would
also explain the reticence of the Rotterdam and Amsterdam chambers of commerce to
join the German protests. Business was not that bad. If anything, German transport with
the Netherlands increased: the throughput of the port of Rotterdam recovered more
100
NA 2.16.23.01 Inv.nr.2956 Letter by the Nederlandsche Spoorwegen to the Minister van Waterstaat, 20 January
1933.
101
Verseput, ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife,’ 335.
236
Jeroen Euwe 5
quickly and grew faster than that of Hamburg, Rotterdam’s most important German
rival.102 According to the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the port of
Rotterdam lost some traffic in merchandise, which they themselves admitted was never
their strong suit.103 The annual report for 1928 of the Commission Centrale pour la
Navigation du Rhin – Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine – mentions that the
Ausnahmetarife caused an important expansion of the port of Bremen.104 That was a fact,
but, although Bremen recovered altogether faster than either Hamburg or Rotterdam, it
was and remained a relatively small port.
In spite of strong competition and governmental intervention, Rhine shipping
remained considerably more important than the railways in transport between Germany
and its western neighbours, the Netherlands and Belgium. Like Rhine shipping, rail
transport of these countries concentrated on Ruhr exports while German imports by rail
were geographically more evenly distributed (Chart 5.6).
102
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam: Secretariaat, 1922-1969, nummer
toegang 3.17.17.04, inv. nr.1617, Memorandum concerning the interests of the Port of Rotterdam regarding annexation
of German territory; Own calculations.
103
Van Lier, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam 1803-1928, 834; Verseput, Kamer van Koophandel en
Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 67.
104
Commission Centrale pour la Navigation, Rapport Annuel 1928 (Strasbourg 1929) 56.
237
Jeroen Euwe 5
Sources: Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen [1924-1927] (Berlin [1926-1930]);
Own calculations.
5.6
Competition on the Rhine
Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium all had extensive Rhine fleets. Nevertheless, ships
under Dutch flag were the majority on the Lower Rhine – from the coast up to Leverkusen
– and especially the Ruhr ports, while German ships were in the majority on the Middle
Rhine – from Cologne to Oberlahnstein – and Upper Rhine – from Bingen to Basel,
including Mannheim.105 As at the German border, ships under the Dutch flag were in the
majority (Table 5.5), thus reinforcing the earlier observations on the importance of the
Ruhr to Germany, and the importance of the Netherlands to the Ruhr,106 it should be
noted that Dutch ships were usually smaller than German ships. This is more than offset,
however, by the overwhelming majority the Dutch ships enjoyed. Part of the reason for
the numerical superiority of Dutch Rhine shipping was the fact that German shipping
companies – both private skippers and the large shipping companies – were able to
finance ships in the Netherlands at significantly lower rates – typically 6 per cent interest –
than would have been possible in Germany. There interest rates were 9-10 per cent after
the lost war.107
As the German shipping companies had lost an appreciable part of their fleet in
lieu of reparations payments to France and Belgium, the ship-owners needed to replenish
their transport capacity.108 Because financing these was both easier and cheaper in the
Netherlands, they turned to one of the ten Dutch ship mortgage banks that specialized in
this business. The shareholders of these banks were – in all probability – all Dutch, as the
buying and selling of these shares was restricted.109 These companies were more than
willing to finance the ships the Germans needed, albeit with the proviso that it should be
registered in the Netherlands, in the name of a Dutch Naamloze Vennootschap (joint stock
105
Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht 1922 (Strasbourg 1923)117.
Source: NL-HaNA, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.90, Letter by Rijkswaterstaat regarding the reportth
Nederbragt on the port of Rotterdam, 29 December 1919; Warsch, Antwerpen, Rotterdam, 52.
107
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 72.
108
Jolmes, Geschichte der Unternehmungen, 82; Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 72.
109
Hendrik van Criekinge, De financiering der scheepvaartondernemingen. Het scheepscredietwezen in België en in de
omringende landen (Leuven 1933) 164.
106
238
Jeroen Euwe 5
company).110 The companies that were established for this purpose attracted Dutch
capital.111 This intertwining of Dutch and German Rhine transport under Dutch flag
110
Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 77.
O. Most, Seehafenausnahmetarifee, Devisenwirtschaft und Rheinschiffahrt: kritische Feststellungen und
Bemerkungen zu einer Streitschrift gegen den Rhein (Jena 1937) 35-36.
111
239
Jeroen Euwe 5
Table 5.5: Number of ships crossing the Dutch-German border at Lobith 1919-1931, by nationality
Dutch
German
Belgian
French
Other
Total
1919
8,571
5,000
1,031
-193
1920
16,372
6,200
2,021
-36
1921
24,406
8,266
4,057
-506
1922
23,168
8,562
3,582
-1,675
1923
15,717
3,853
1,923
1,211
173
1924
35,213
13,116
9,385
3,027
288
1925
46,328
14,886
11,100
3,189
640
1926
64,601
24,356
15,375
3,190
993
1927
57,634
18,065
12,297
2,834
836
1928
57,421
16,775
12,562
2,745
826
1929
60,362
17,308
13,768
2,490
943
1930
65,695
16,231
15,015
2,669
1,101
1931
59,641
13,842
15,359
2,756
1,093
14,795
24,629
37,235
36,987
22,877
61,029
76,143
108,515
91,666
90,329
94,871
100,711
92,691
Sources: Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt [1920-1931] (Strasbourg [1921-1932]); Own calculations.
* Data for ships crossing the Dutch-German border were registered both at Lobith and at Emmerich. The data for Lobith were used because they show a greater internal consistency. Differences
between the two datasets are to the order of 2-3 per cent.
239
Jeroen Euwe 5
had started already before the war, when a number of German companies with their own
barge fleet, such as Thyssen or Stinnes, had transferred their fleet either in part or in its
entirety to the Netherlands. Then this was done because Dutch wage costs were much
lower.112 That the newly built ships that were financed by Dutch banks had to be
registered in the Netherlands, also had other reasons. Both before and after the war,
favourable Dutch tax laws were a major attracting force. Additionally, wages and
employer’s contributions to social security services were significantly lower.113 Finally,
during the post-war economic difficulties in Germany some companies – with approval of
the German government – placed their entire fleet under Dutch flag to prevent
confiscation by the allies.114
Sources: Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt
[1919-1933] (Strasbourg [1920-1934]); Statistischen Reichsamt, Statistik des Deutschen Reichs, Verkehr der deutschen
Binnenwasserstraßen [1919-1933] (Berlin [1920-1934]); own calculations.
112
Jolmes, Geschichte der Unternehmungen, 63, 84.
Lülsdorf, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 65.
114
Most, Seehafenausnahmetarifee, Devisenwirtschaft und Rheinschiffahrt, 35.
113
240
Jeroen Euwe 5
How much of the Dutch Rhine fleet was de facto in German hands, is illustrated by the
fact that by the beginning of 1933 Germans accounted for 37.4 per cent of all mortgages
on ships.115 According to a report by the Central Commission for Navigation on the Rhine,
at least 39 per cent of the Dutch fleet of Rhine barges should be regarded as being
predominantly German-owned, although they admit that 15 per cent is based on
educated guesses. Nevertheless, the authors state that the actual percentage of ships that
were mainly owned by Germans probably was significantly higher.116 Given that already
before the war German companies had started to put their Rhine barges under Dutch flag
for reasons other than financing, and taking into account that the German share of 37.4
per cent of all mortgages – which is directly linked to the economic lifespan of a ship and
therefore a good indicator of the lower limit of German ownership within the Dutch Rhine
fleet as a whole – the estimate of the Rhine commission can be considered to have been
extremely conservative. It also explains the structural decline of the share of German
shipping versus the rise of Dutch shipping on all stretches of the Rhine (Graph 5.6). As the
secretary of the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce and Industry noted in 1927, ‘the
building of Rhine ships for German customers has been most important these past few
years, and must undoubtedly be counted amongst the factors that create an economic
bond between the Ruhr and Rotterdam’.117 Between 1925 and 1931 the entire Rhine fleet
expanded from circa 5.2 million tonnes to 7.2 million tonnes. Because all other Rhine
fleets remained stable, most of this expansion can be attributed to Dutch ships. 118 A less
desirable side-effect of this building activity was that the total capacity of the Rhine fleet –
where signs of overcapacity had already been visible before the war – grew even larger.119
This resulted in lower freight rates, and made Rhine shipping one of the least profitable
enterprises.120 Nevertheless, the extensive German direct foreign investments in the
Dutch Rhine fleet and associated activities such as port installations – although financed
by Dutch banks – contributed greatly to a Rhine transport system. In this branch, Dutch
115
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 72.
B. Harms, B. Kuske, O. Most, Die deutsche Rheinschiffahrt: Gutachten der Rhein-Kommission über die Lage der
Rheinschiffahrt in der in ihr beschäftigten Arbeitsnehmer (Berlin 1930) 196-197.
117
NL-HaNa, BuZa/Economische Zaken, 2.05.37 inv.nr.2682, Letter by Van Lier, Secretaris of the Chamber of Commerce
th
and Industry for Rotterdam, 6 April 1927.
118
Walter, Enige economische beschouwingen, 83.
119
Jolmes, Geschichte der Unternehmungen, 82.
120
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 74.
116
241
Jeroen Euwe 5
and German companies were to a considerable extent integrated. This in turn no doubt
enhanced the ability of Rotterdam to compete with other ports.
242
Jeroen Euwe 5
5.7
Competition with other ports
The port of Rotterdam was in constant competition with the Belgian and German North
Sea ports, but the only significant competitors were Antwerp and Hamburg. Informants in
these competing port cities kept the Commissie Concurrentiemogelijkheden – Commission
for Competition Opportunities – of the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce informed on all
developments regarding investments, monthly traffic statistics and other developments in
these ports cities that could threaten Rotterdam’s position, while all along the Rhine
representatives were actively promoting Rotterdam, especially in potential growth
markets such as Switzerland.121
Antwerp was Belgium’s most important port, both for seagoing transport as well
as for inland shipping. For seagoing traffic, Antwerp was somewhat better located than
Rotterdam: thanks to the extremely wide estuary of the Scheldt, the port was both easier
and safer to enter, while during bad weather ships bound for Rotterdam had to wait for
the weather to clear at sea near Hoek van Holland.122 As an author from Antwerp wrote
this information, it is hardly amazing that this point is emphasized, while the fact that the
port of Antwerp was situated behind locks – which made entering more time-consuming –
was ignored. Above all, however, Antwerp’s position with regards to the Rhine was much
less favourable. To get to the Rhine, ships had to follow an arduous route through all kinds
of canals and locks before they could enter the Waal, a tributary of the Rhine. Locks as
well as the tide would often cause traffic-jams along the route.123
In Rotterdam the barge connection with the hinterland was much better, but
Antwerp had a better and especially shorter rail connection with the German hinterland.
The contrast between Rotterdam – which focussed on the transhipment of bulk goods –
and Antwerp – concentrated on merchandise – is partly explained by this already. The
handling of merchandise was a more lucrative endeavour than was the handling of bulk
goods, since transhipment was a much longer process for merchandise. Therefore, not
121
NL-HaNa, KvK Rotterdam/Secretariaat, 3.17.17.04, invoer nummer 2375, Miscellaneous letters, reports and minutes;
NL-HaNa, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr.90, Letter by the Consul in Switzerland to the Foreign Minister, 28
Juli 1920; NL-HaNa, BuZa / Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr. 90, Report on transhipment in Rotterdam and Antwerp,
th
19 October 1920; Ibidem Letter to the consul in Geneva, September 24 1920.
122
M.W. van de Velde, Le Port d’Anvers, aperçu de la situation économique et politique du port national Belge en
comparaison avec celle des ports de Rotterdam et Dunkerque (Antwerp 1930) 7.
123
Warsch, Antwerpen, Rotterdam, 30.
243
Jeroen Euwe 5
only were more man-hours needed to load or unload the ship, much more time was spent
in port, resulting in higher income for the port in port fees.
Due to high wages, as well as high port fees in Rotterdam costs had always been
considerably higher than in either Antwerp or in Hamburg.124 In the transhipment of bulk
goods such as grain, ores, or coal, these higher costs were offset by the superior technical
equipment and better Rhine connection of Rotterdam.125 Grain was unloaded more than
twice as fast as in Antwerp, while coal and ores were unloaded at two to three times the
speed, with even higher speeds available if need be.126 Because these technological
advantages were of no value in the transhipment of merchandise, which was hands-on
work, the high wages and port fees hampered Rotterdam’s development as a port for this
most lucrative type of cargo. To remedy this, a special commission that was tasked with
expanding Rotterdam’s handling of merchandise – the Stukgoedcommissie – was created.
The Stukgoedcommissie tried to get the various parties that were levying these fees – the
state, the city council, and various private parties – to lower them. Despite years of effort,
this never really succeeded.127
Table 5.6: Movement of goods through the ports of Antwerp, Hamburg, and Rotterdam, 18871932, in million tonnes.
Year
1887
1902
1910
1913
1920
1924
1929
1932
Antwerp
Hamburg
3.9
11.4
16.2
18.9
13.1
21.4
26.1
17.4
Rotterdam
5.4
15.0
23.1
25.5
5.8
19.5
27.0
19.4
3.2
12.7
22.9
29.4
12.0
25.0
38.8
21.3
Source: NL-HaNa, KvK Rotterdam/Secretariaat, 3.17.17.04, inv. nr.1617, Memorandum concerning the interests of the
port of Rotterdam regarding annexation of German territory. Data as presented in the memorandum.
124
NL-HaNa, BuZa/Economische Zaken, 2.05.37 inv.nr.875, Letter KvK&F Rotterdam, 29-11-1922.
Lülsdorfs, Die Bedeutung Rotterdams, 42; NL-HaNa, BuZa/Economische Zaken, 2.05.37 inv.nr.875, Letter KvK&F
Rotterdam, 29-11-1922.
126
NL-HaNa, BuZa/Economische Zaken, 2.05.37, inv.nr. 90, Report on transhipment in Rotterdam and Antwerp, dated 19
October 1920.
127
Verseput, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken, 69-75; Van Lier, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor
Rotterdam, 1803-1928, 852-862.
125
244
Jeroen Euwe 5
During the first half of the 1920s, competition between the two ports was especially fierce
as both ports tried to reclaim the traffic they had lost during the war as a consequence of
the economic troubles of the time and of the first years after the war. Antwerp gained a
competitive edge when – in order to promote their own seaports – the French in 1919 reinstituted the surtaxes d’entrepôt, a levy on almost all non-European products and the
surtaxes d’origine, a levy on a large number of European products in as far as these were
not transported directly from the country of origin to a French port.128 The taxes payable
were often greater than the cost of shipping. In 1924, this duty amounted to 33.6 francs
per ton, while freight costs to Strasbourg were 25-40 francs per ton.129 When Antwerp
was granted exemptions a year later, Rotterdam lost most of its traffic to Strasbourg.130
By way of compensation for the surtaxes, Antwerp had already instituted a free tug
service to the Rhine from its port, and had committed itself to the construction of a canal
to the Rhine at Moerdijk.131
This canal over Dutch soil was obviously not in the Dutch economic interests. That
the Dutch Foreign Minister van Karnebeek had agreed to the Belgian wish for an improved
connection between Antwerp and the Rhine was a result of the difficult diplomatic
position the Dutch found themselves in at the end of the war. During the war, the Dutch
came to be seen as profiteers, who made good money by exporting to both sides of the
conflict. Their reputation had not been improved by the fact that, when former German
emperor Wilhelm II had sought asylum in the Netherlands on 10 November 1918, they
had not only granted this, but had also denied the demands of the Entente to extradite
the man so that he could be tried for his war crimes. Then there had been the fact that on
12 November 1918, the day after the armistice, the Dutch had let 70,000 disarmed
German troops escape from Belgian soil through Dutch Limburg, according to The Hague
to help Belgium to get rid of these by then hardly disciplined troops.132 However, as a
128
Warsch, Antwerpen, Rotterdam, 21; Verseput, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 65; Van Lier,
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 1803-1928, 834; Walker D. Hines, Rapport relatif `a la Navigation
sur le Rhin, présenté a la Commission Consultative et Technique des Communications et du Transit de la Société des
Nations (Geneva 1925) 8-9.
129
H.S. de Roode, ‘The Port of Rotterdam.’ In: M. de Vries (Ed.), Jubileumnummer 1916-1926 In- en Uitvoer:
Handelseconomisch weekblad voor Nederland en koloniën (Amsterdam 1926) 131-137, here 135.
130
NL-HaNa, KvK Rotterdam/Secretariaat, 3.17.17.04, inv. nr. 2375, Letter to the Minister for foreign affairs concerning
rd
the effects of the French taxes on imports, November 23 1923.
131
Van Lier, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 1803-1928, 835.
132
Aide-Mémoire, 23 november 1918. B.Z., A 250 Nt., Doortocht. C. Smit (ed.), Bescheiden betreffende de Buitenlandse
Politiek van Nederland 1848-1945. Derde Periode, deel vijf, tweede stuk ( 3.5.2) 1917-1919 – GS 117 (The Hague 1964)
752.
245
Jeroen Euwe 5
neutral country, the Dutch should have either refused them entry, or should have
interned these soldiers. By not doing either, the Entente argued, the Netherlands had
violated its own neutrality and both of these events proved especially to the French and
the Belgians that, although they regarded the Dutch population as pro-Entente, the Dutch
élite consisted of Germanophiles. The French marshal Philippe Pétain expressed this
opinion in strong terms: ‘If Holland suffers the loss of our sympathy and later possibly
suffers reprisals, she will only have herself to blame.’133 The Dutch foreign minister Van
Karnebeek, who had taken office only a few months before, was faced with the difficult
task to extricate the Netherlands from this diplomatic isolation.134 To do so, Van
Karnebeek started by subtly promoting an understanding of the Dutch position with the
Entente. Shortly after he started his tenure as Minister of Foreign Affairs, he reorganized
the department. Economic diplomatic relations were now coordinated by the Directie
voor Economische Zaken – Directorate for Economic Affairs – that was advised by a Raad
van Bijstand inzake de Buitenlandsche Economische Aangelegenheden – Advisory board
on Foreign Economic Affairs – consisting of prominent businessmen and economic
experts. These businessmen and experts also would use their personal ties with the
countries of the Entente to smooth the way.135
By the time the Paris peace conference started, the Dutch were still isolated. The
Belgians made use of this, and demanded annexation of parts of Limburg and Zeelandic
Flanders, as well as a better agreement on the water level of the Meuse – important for
inland shipping –, the depth of the sea lane in the Western Scheldt to obtain better access
to the port of Antwerp, an improvement of the connection of Antwerp to the Rhine, and a
solution to a territorial conflict regarding the southern-most sea lane in the North Sea
towards the Scheldt, the Wielingen. While the issue of Limburg was raised out of militarystrategic considerations that were the result of the war, the other Belgian demands had a
longer history.
133
‘De Gezant te Parijs De Stuers aan Van Karnebeek, 20 november 1918. Partikulier en vertrouwelijk (Archief-Van
Karenbeek).’ In: Smits, Buitenlandse Politiek, 3.8.1. 1917-1919 - GS 145, 755.
134
For a concise overview of Van Karnebeek’s actions: Rolf Schuursma, ‘De beste van het interbellum. Herman Adriaan
van Karnebeek (1918-1927).’ In: Duco Hellema, Bert Zeeman, Bert van der Zwan, De Nederlandse ministers van
Buitenlandse Zaken in de twintigste eeuw (The Hague 1999) 82-97.
135
Schuursma, ‘De beste van het Interbellum,’ 87-88; J.A. Nederbragt, Herinneringen. Oud en nieuw uit het boek mijner
gedachtenis (The Hague 1950).
246
Jeroen Euwe 5
The fact that the access of the port of Antwerp to the sea was by way of a Dutch
stretch of water had long been a thorny issue in Dutch-Belgian relations, both for
commercial and military reasons. Dutch neutrality meant, that in time of war foreign
military ships were not allowed to pass the Scheldt, which weakened the Belgian military
position, as any navy support to Belgium from one of his allies would immediately result in
the violation of the Dutch neutrality and possibly even in war with the Dutch. Commercial
access to the port of Antwerp was also affected, as the depth of the shipping lane in the
Scheldt determined the maximum size of the ships that could pass.136
Although initially the Netherlands, being a neutral country, was not invited to the
peace talks in Paris that would result in the Treaty of Versailles, the Belgian demands
meant they now had a stake. Therefore, in May 1919, the Dutch government was invited
to join the discussion and Minister van Karnebeek personally went to the French capital to
defend the Dutch interests.137 Through a combination of fine diplomacy, and handily
making use of the reticence of the other members of the Entente to annex parts of a
neutral country, Van Karnebeek was able to frustrate the Belgian efforts to annex Dutch
soil. The strategic importance of Limburg was no longer an issue after the Dutch had
declared that any military incursion on Dutch territory would be a cause for war.
Meanwhile, the Dutch agreed to become a member of the new League of Nations, where,
through the active participation of Van Karnebeek, the standing of the Netherlands
quickly recovered. Nevertheless, the Dutch had to negotiate with the Belgians regarding
the remaining issues.
Soon, the two countries had come to an agreement on most issues, including the
Dutch consent to the construction of a canal over Dutch soil that would improve the
connection between the port of Antwerp and the Rhine. The Belgians were planning to
complete the canal within seven years, which caused great concern in the Netherlands.
Yet, those without a vested interest were not completely convinced of the danger the
canal posed to the port of Rotterdam and Dutch Rhine shipping. The French envoy in The
Hague Charles Benoist posed that the cost of the canal and the necessary locks would be
so high, that the fees that would have to be levied would negate the advantage of the
136
th
D.A. Hellema, Nederland en de wereld. Buitenlandse politiek van Nederland (Houten 4 ed. 2010) 69; Schuursma, De
beste van het Interbellum, 89.
137
NL-HaNA, Karnebeek, H.A. van, 2.05.25, inv.nr.70 Letter about the peace conference by Van Karnebeek to Ruys de
Beerenbrouck, 21-5-1919.
247
Jeroen Euwe 5
canal.138 In May 1920, however, the Belgian foreign minister Paul Hymans broke off the
negotiations in May because of Dutch stubbornness over the territorial issue at the
Wielingen in the North Sea.139 Even though the talks had been interrupted, the potential
threat of a better Belgian connection to the Rhine was such that it caused those with
interests in Rhine shipping and the port of Rotterdam to continue their protest whenever
the issue was raised again.140
Table 5.7: Development of traffic of Rhine barges in the port of Antwerp 1923-1931. By nationality
in percentages, development of traffic as index, 1926=100.
6
14
13
17
20
22
24
19
24
30
29
12
35
45
45
43
45
39
30
40
54
44
35
32
32
32
37
40
48
51
43
45
46
44
38
25
30
22
17
9
9
11
10
11
12
Traffic index
Departures
Arrivals
Departures
Arrivals
Departures
21
15
15
11
12
17
17
27
19
French
30
23
20
25
19
11
10
12
28
Departures
8
9
15
11
10
11
13
11
10
Belgian
Arrivals
1923
1924
1925
1926
1927
1928
1929
1930
1931
Arrivals
Arrivals
Year
Dutch
Departures
German
15
49
56
100
90
77
80
74
72
31
86
112
100
99
71
63
54
82
Sources: Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Bericht der Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt
[1923-1931] (Strasbourg [1924-1932]); Own calculations.
Four years later, in August 1924, the Belgians returned to the negotiations. Now, they
focussed on the Belgian connection to the Rhine and disregarded all issues that could
cause the talks to fail. On 3 April 1925, a treaty was signed which included the
construction of a canal to the Rhine. The treaty caused widespread protests amongst
138
NL-HaNA, Karnebeek, H.A. van, 2.05.25, inv.nr.54 Meeting between Van Karnebeek and French envoy Benoist, 25-111919.
139
'No.351 Delegate Struycken to Commission of Fourteen, Paris, 20-5-1920.’ In: Documenten betreffende de
buitenlandse politiek van Nederland 1919-1945, Periode A 1919-1930, Deel I, 1 Juli 1919-1 Juli 1920 (Den Haag 1976)
LXXXIX.
140
NL-HaNA, Karnebeek, H.A. van, 2.05.25, inv.nr.54 Dagboek Van Van Karnebeek, 25-11-1919. NL-HaNa, KvK
Rotterdam/Secretariaat, 3.17.17.04, inv. nr. 2375, Meeting of the Commissie Concurrentiemogelijkheden, November
th
20 1923; NL-HaNa, KvK Rotterdam/Secretariaat, 3.17.17.04, inv. nr. 2375, NL-HaNa, KvK Rotterdam/Secretariaat,
3.17.17.04, inv. nr. 2375, Letter from the Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce and Industry to the Mayor of Rotterdam,
rd
th
November 23 1923; Letter by Mayor Wytema to the Minister for foreign affairs, November 27 1923; NL-HaNa, KvK
rd
Rotterdam/Secretariaat, 3.17.17.04, inv. nr. 2375, Report on French measures favouring Antwerp, November 23 1923;
NL-HaNa, KvK Rotterdam/Secretariaat, 3.17.17.04, inv. nr. 2375, Minutes of a meeting of representatives of the
rd
Rotterdam Chamber of Commerce with the minister for foreign affairs, December 3 1923.
248
Jeroen Euwe 5
those who had interests in Rhine shipping or in the Port of Rotterdam and opened a lively
and long-running debate in the press.141 Ultimately, after the treaty was accepted in the
Second Chamber of Parliament, in 1927 the ratification of the treaty was denied by the
First Chamber, the Senate. It resulted in the resignation of minister van Karnebeek, who
had valiantly defended it.142
Belgium tried to further improve its position in the competition between the ports
and the transport to the German hinterland by instituting lower rates for transport by rail
from its ports toward the hinterland and vice versa.143 Despite these Belgian measures,
Rotterdam surpassed Antwerp in 1924 (Table 5.6), and even though until 1924 Antwerp
had a larger turnover, an important part of its Rhine traffic arrived in Rhine barges under
Dutch colours (Table 5.7).144 Although the throughput of its port would only surpass that
of Antwerp by 1924, because of its concentration on bulk goods, Rotterdam had a
dominant position in the shipping of bulk goods along the Rhine throughout the period
1919-1931. Most of these bulk goods were the raw materials that were shipped to and
from the German industry. Even though Antwerp was at times able to secure a lead on a
destination such as Strasbourg, such partial dominance was only temporary and of little
importance when viewed in context of the total flow of goods to and from the Rhine.
More important was dominance in merchandise of the port of Antwerp, which is
hardly visible when total transport is measured in tonnes, but was interesting,
nonetheless, as merchandise was the most profitable cargo to handle. In spite of
vehement protests in the Netherlands by those with interests in Rhine shipping, over the
various Belgian and French measures that caused this temporary dominance, the Dutch
government did not intervene. This was partly, because these measures only influenced
traffic to the Alsace, and thus were only a very small part of Rhine traffic. Getting the
French to change their policy would not be done merely ‘pour nos beaux yeux’ – for our
pretty eyes –, as Van Karnebeek put it. To get French and Belgian concessions, as with
everything, something would have to be given in return, and these concessions would
141
Th. van Welderen Rengers, Duitsche stroomingen en het verworpen Nederlandsch-Belgisch Verdrag (Leeuwarden
1928); A.J. van Vessem, Een historische onjuistheid. De grondslag van minister Van Karnebeek’s tractaat met België
(Utrecht 1926); A.J. van Vessem, De verrassingen van het tractaat met België (Utrecht 1926); ‘Opengelaten punten.’
Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 4-11-1924, Avond; R.L. Schuursma, Het onaannemelijk tractaat. Het verdrag met België
van 3 april 1925 in de Nederlandse publieke opinie (Groningen 1975).
142
Schuursma, Het onaannemelijk tractaat, 248-249.
143
Warsch, Antwerpen, Rotterdam, 37-38.
144
Van de Velde, Le Port d’Anvers, 140.
249
Jeroen Euwe 5
outweigh this temporary setback. Far more important to the recovery of transport in the
Dutch ports and on the Rhine were the issues of monetary instability abroad, and, most of
all, the overall slump of the hinterland.145
145
NL-HaNa, KvK Rotterdam / Secretariaat, 3.17.17.04, inv. nr. 2375, Meeting of representatives of the Rotterdam
rd
chamber of commerce and industry with the Minister for foreign affairs, December 3 1923; BArch R 901/77074 Report
by the German consulate for the Auswärtige Amt, Rotterdam, 6-12-1923.
250
Jeroen Euwe 5
5.8
Conclusion
The economic structure and international economic ties of Germany with the surrounding
countries, especially with the Netherlands, find a strong expression in the transport
sector. Statistics for both inland shipping as well as internal railway transport show that
Germany’s economic heartland clearly was the Ruhr area. Germany’s international traffic
also centred on the Ruhr and consisted mostly of shipping along the Rhine. In fact, traffic
flows indicate that the Rhine river basin can rightly be called a transnational economic
region – encompassing parts of the Netherlands, Belgium and France – with the Ruhr area
as its economic heartland.
Although ties with Belgium and France were strong, it was the Netherlands – more
specifically, the port of Rotterdam – that provided the Ruhr with its connection to the rest
of the world economy. The Dutch transport sector was focussed on international
transport with Germany, specifically the Ruhr area and the left bank of the Rheinprovinz.
While railway transport was sizeable, Rhine traffic was considerably more important.
When after the stabilization of the German currency and the adoption of the Dawes-plan,
Germany’s economic recovery started, it was Rhine shipping which profited.
In shipping to and from the Ruhr, ships under the Dutch flag were in an
overwhelming majority. A significant part of these ships were, however, actually German,
although especially during this period the question as to what exactly was a German
company blurred due to extensive foreign investments by the Dutch in Germany and vice
versa. These German-owned Rhine ships under Dutch flag had usually been financed by
Dutch banks, and were part of the Dutch subsidiaries of German concerns. Nevertheless,
this fact does not necessarily refute Adenauer’s claim. In fact, it enhances it. Even though
mostly financed by the Dutch, these foreign direct investments – that had already started
before the war – only added to the intertwining of Dutch and German companies, and
therefore of their economies.
It is during this period, that Rotterdam surpassed its two main rivals Antwerp and
Hamburg as Germany’s gateway to the world market. In spite of the more extensive
Belgian railway network, not just Dutch shipping, but also Dutch railway traffic with
Germany was greater. When German international traffic by way of the Rotterdam Port is
compared with traffic through either Antwerp or Hamburg, the Dutch transport sector
was clearly Germany’s most important partner in international freight.
251
Jeroen Euwe 5
All in all, the answer to whether Adenauer’s claim that ‘the backbone of the
economic ties between Germany and the Netherlands is the Rhine’ holds water, can
therefore best be summed up as: most definitely, with the addendum that transport flows
indicate that the Rhine river system – which can indeed be viewed as a transnational
economic region – had two main economic centres: the extended Ruhr area as a
production centre, and the port of Rotterdam as its main distribution centre.
252
Jeroen Euwe 6
Chapter 6 – Diplomatic relations
6.1
Introduction
On economic issues that were of importance to the Netherlands and Germany there
was a constant stream of reports by the legations and consulates of both countries,
and there were regular negotiations such matters. Regular diplomatic relations, on
the other hand, were limited to just a few issues. Of these, only the damages
sustained by Dutch civilians as a result of the war, and a border dispute over the Ems
estuary are of note. Apart from the mutual diplomacy, there was one other matter
of note: the promotion by the Dutch of German interests in international politics.
253
Jeroen Euwe 6
6.2
Dutch promotion of German interests in international politics
Although by the end of the decade Dutch public opinion had turned against the
Germans, during the first post-war years the Dutch had shown compassion with the
German population. This compassion ranged from taking in German children from
the Ruhr to give them a holiday and a proper meal, to the understanding that even
as German products were outcompeting Dutch goods, the Germans were still in an
altogether unenviable position.1 This did not stop the Dutch from temporarily
protecting the Dutch tobacco and shoe industries from German competition, but on
the other hand, that was also the full extent of such measures. The Dutch were only
too well aware of the importance of a quick German economic recovery to the Dutch
economy. It was because of this that they not only tried to help the recovery of
German industry, but also advocated the inclusion of Germany in the League of
Nations. Ironically, this initially included convincing the Germans that it was in their
interests to become a member of the League.2
The Dutch were only in a position to do so, once they themselves had once
again become a part of the international community again. The passage through
Limburg granted to fleeing and disarmed German soldiers after the war, and the
asylum that was granted to former German emperor Wilhelm II, had diminished the
Dutch standing among bthe former allies. If it were not for Foreign Minister Van
Karnebeeks diplomatic efforts at the Paris Peace Conference – and the reticence of
the other members of the Entente to annex parts of a neutral country –, Belgium
might have been allowed to annex parts of the Netherlands. Because of its active
participation in the League of Nations however, within a few years the Dutch had
politically recovered from its wartime damage. Consequently, The Hague felt able to
press the United Kingdom for action in the matter of the Ruhr occupation in 1923,
which caused a disruption of traffic on the Rhine, had led to violations of the
international Rhine Act of Mannheim (1868), and was most damaging not just to the
German, but also to the Dutch economy.3 With the adoption of the Dawes-plan in
1
Ries Roowaan, Im Schatten der Großen Politik. Deutsch-Niederländische Beziehungen zur Zeit der Weimarer
Republik, 1918-1933 (Münster 2006) 132-134.
2
NL-HaNA, Karnebeek, H.A. van, 2.05.25, inv.nr.56 Diary of Van Karnebeek during the Genua Conference, 13
April 1922.
3
Woltring, BPvN, 234 Van Karnebeek aan de Nlse gezant in Londen De Marees van Swinderen, 7 maart 1923.
254
Jeroen Euwe 6
1924, Germany was no longer isolated. After the Locarno Treaties – made possible
after the staunchly anti-German government of Poincaré had made way for that of
Aristide Briand – and the subsequent German membership of the League of Nations,
such Dutch diplomacy was no longer needed.
255
Jeroen Euwe 6
6.3
War damages
Apart from sporadic Dutch efforts to speak on behalf of Germany, which were
always in the direct interest of the Dutch as well, there were only a few political
matters that were not either directly or indirectly related to the Dutch-German
economic interdependence. One of these matters was the result of the war. Even
though the Dutch had been neutral, they had suffered damage as a direct result of
the military conflict. These damages ranged from minor – such as the damage done
to houses or crops by crashed aeroplanes – to unjust imprisonment or forced
enlistment and to loss of lifes. In the cases were the German liability was clear and
monetary interests negligible, such as damage caused by a crashed aeroplane, the
German government quickly acknowledged their responsibility.4 In the case of the
damage caused to the roads in Limburg by the passage of German soldiers, and the
transport of their confiscated weapons, they were already less forthcoming. 5 The
unjust imprisonment of a Dutch citizen with a French name – who had been arrested
in France and became partially disabled by a hernia suffered during his
imprisonment – or the former German, now Dutch citizen, who had been forced to
enlist in the German army, were legally complicated.6 These were all – in monetary
terms – relatively unimportant. The one war-related issue that was more important,
was the damage suffered by Dutch fisheries and merchant shipping. During the war,
according to a summary by the Bureau voor Zeeoorlogsschade – Bureau for damages
sustained during the sea war – 699 sailors had lost their lives, and 76 ships had been
destroyed, with a further 17 damaged as a result of German or British mines, and
German torpedoes. Almost 2,000 sailors had been detained – mostly by the British –
as their ships were checked for contraband either at sea or in port. The total claimed
damages were in excess of 35 million guilders, over 26 million of which were due to
German actions. Of the deaths, the great majority were due to parties unknown. 7 It
4
BArch R 901/27866 Heeres-Abwickelungs-Amt-Preussen (formerly Kriegsministerium) to the German Foreign
Office, 12-2-1920.
5
BArch R 901/27865 Dutch legation in Berlin to the German Foreign Office, 18-10-1919.
6
BArch R 901/27866 Various papers regarding Messrs. LeJeune and Holzschuher von Harrlach, 1919-1920.
7
Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: Bureau Zeeoorlogsschade, 1919-1940,
nummer toegang 2.05.32.09, inventarisnummer 31 Overzicht der door het Bureau voor Zeeoorlogsschade op
grond van de tot 1 April 1921 ingekomen vragenlysten voorlopig onderzochte schadevorderingen, ingedeeld naar
haar aard en naar de Mogendheden, waartegen zy zyn gericht. Oddly enough, an earlier report mentioned 1200
dead sailors, and 300 shipwrecks. See: Idem, Algemeen voorlopig rapport van het Bureau voor Zeeoorlogsschade,
4 Juni 1920.
256
Jeroen Euwe 6
took until 1922 for the Dutch government to institute a commission that would
estimate the damages in each particular case.8 In the end, it would take until 1930
before a multi-year payment plan – preferably in the form of payment in Germanbuilt ships – was discussed, for which Germany tried to obtain a extension of the
Tredefina credit until 1922.9 By the end of 1931, the matter had still not been
settled.
The ships that had been sunk, however, were almost all small fishing vessels.
In one particular case, the ship that had been sunk was an oceanliner belonging to
an important Dutch shipping line, the Koninklijke Hollandsche Lloyd. The ship in
question, the Tubantia, was sunk by a German submarine on 16 March 1916 with no
loss of life.10 Although the Germans initially claimed the ship had been sunk by a
British mine, before long they had to admit it had been a German submarine. It
would be the only case were the German paid damages already in the 1920s. One of
the directors of the Koninklijke Hollandsche Lloyd was C.J.K. van Aalst, president of
the Nederlandsche Handel Maatschappij and one of the most influential Dutch
businessmen. When after the war, the Germans were not forthcoming enough, Van
Aalst merely had to imply that this would negatively impact the credit that had been
granted to German industry in 1920. Van Aalst had been instrumental in this credit, a
fact the Germans were only too well aware of. Given that the damage to German
industry would be greater than the savings in denying compensation, in September
1922 the Germans agreed to pay 8.5 million guilders in compensation for the
losses.11
8
NL-HaNA, BuZa / Zeeoorlogsschade, 2.05.32.09, inv.nr.3, Notulen eerste vergadering van sub-commissie B van
de Commissie voor Zeeoorlogsschade, 9-11-1922.
9
BArch R 3101/2749 fol.30-39 Report by the German Foreign Office on the compensation of damages relating to
the war at sea, 7 April 1930.
10
‘De “Tubantia”.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 17-03-1916 Ochtend; Later articles in the press also did not mention
any deaths.
11
BArch R 43 I/88 fol.121 Telegram Kreuter, 1-9-1922.
257
Jeroen Euwe 6
6.4
Border dispute
On the whole, the integrity and location of the Dutch-German border was never
questioned. Archives on the matter almost all concern humdrum matters such as the
maintenance of border markings, and border traffic which was eased by a number of
agreements in 1921 and 1923.12 In 1928, the Dutch and German customs posts on
the Rhine were even merged to ease traffic.13 The only exception to these smoothly
handled border issues was the Ems, which was the subject of a long-standing – and
still unresolved – border dispute. The Ems is a German river, whose estuary forms
the border between the North-Easternmost part of the Netherlands and NorthWestern Germany. From the Geman point of view, the Ems was a German river, and
therefore its entire estuary was German as well. To the Dutch government, on the
other hand, the Ems estuary was a shared border. Therefore, according to
international law, the border was located in the middle of the thalweg – the deepest
fairway. At the time of the Weimar Republic, it was already a long-running matter
that once every few years would rear its head. Since 1894, the Dutch adopted a wait
and see attitude, as they were not sure the Dutch point of view would hold up in
court.14 In 1911 it was decided to have a Dutch-German commission study the
issue.15 The next year, however, a high diplomate of the German foreign office
visited the Dutch foreign minister R. de Marees van Swinderen, to unofficially dicuss
a possible solution.16 The Germans had prepared a memorandum, detailing their
claims and citing historical documents dating as far back as the 15 th century. While
12
See: Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken: Afdeling Binnenlands Bestuur, 18791950, nummer toegang 2.04.57, inventarisnummer 1416; Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van
Binnenlandse Zaken: Afdeling Binnenlands Bestuur, 1879-1950, nummer toegang 2.04.57, inv.nr. 1417; Nationaal
Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken: Afdeling Binnenlands Bestuur, 1879-1950, nummer
toegang 2.04.57, inv.nr. 1420; PA AA, R 71562; Idem, R 71563; Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van
Binnenlandse Zaken: Afdeling Binnenlands Bestuur, 1879-1950, nummer toegang 2.04.57, 71564; Idem, R71565;
BArch R 3101/2738 fol.188-189; Nationaal Archief, Den Haag, Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken: Afdeling
Binnenlands Bestuur, 1879-1950, nummer toegang 2.04.57, R 43 I/88 fol.152-156, various letters and
ontwerpwet, 1921 en 1923.
13
R 43 I/88 fol.235-240 various letters and overeenkomst inzake samenvoeging Nederlandsche en Duitsche
douanepost on the Rhine, September 1928.
14
C. Smit, Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland 1848-1919, Derde periode 1899-1919,
No.644 Nota van het hoofd der eerste afdeling van het ministerie van buitenlandse zaken Rochussen, undated
[ca. 14-4-1906] 703.
15
C. Smit, Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland 1848-1919, Derde periode 1899-1919,
No. 846 Nota van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken inzake de grensregeling in de Beneden-Eems, 24-121918, 827-831.
16
C. Smit, Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland 1848-1919, Derde periode 1899-1919,
No.681 Min buza De Marees van Swinderen aan konWilhelmina, 25-6-1912, 789.
258
Jeroen Euwe 6
recognizing the fact that the Dutch had established common law legal rights to the
use of the estuary, which the Germans would be willing to grant officially in a treaty,
the Germans were now pressuring for a swift solution. The Dutch were well aware
that their position in the matter was weak, and were looking for a way in which they
could acknowledge the German rights to the Ems without harming Dutch
sovereignty – ensuring de accessibility of the Dutch port of Delftzijl on the Ems.17
Even though some of the historical documents used by the Germans to prove their
claim were regarded as false, the remaining documents were still enough to ensure
that in arbitration the German claim would be granted.18 However, before an
agreement could be reached, the First World War broke out. During the war, the
Dutch decided not to interfere with German shipping movements on the Ems. 19
Since the area was disputed, there was no need to enforce Dutch neutrality.20 Just
after the end of the war, in December 1918, the Dutch were preparing to raise the
issue again.
By now, the Dutch chances for a satisfactory outcome were better than
before, since the Entente governments would never allow the recognition of the
German sovereignty over a disputed territory during at least the first few years. The
Dutch tried to use their temporary ascendancy to persuade the Germans that the
Dutch solution would be the best possible solution for both parties: both the Dutch
port of Delfzijl and the German port of Emden would be reachable through territorial
waters.21 The Germans, however, needed the part of the Ems channel that the Dutch
claimed because it was the only approach that could be used by the larger German
ships. Furthermore, the German navy was emphasizing its importance to the defense
of the Reich.22 In May 1919, the Germans came to baron Gevers with a proposal. A
mixed commission of eight persons would work out a solution that would serve both
the military and economic interests of both countries.23 The Germans were now
17
C. Smit, Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland 1848-1919, Derde periode 1899-1919,
No. 846 Nota van het Departement van Buitenlandse Zaken inzake de grensregeling in de Beneden-Eems, 24-121918, 827-831.
18
Smit, Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek, No. 756 Prof. J. Jitta aan min BuZa Loudon, 6 February
1914, 884-903, there 901-902.
19
BArch R 901/36645 fol.3-4 Reichsmarineamt aan Staatssekretär des Auswärtigen Amts, 16-3-1919.
20
Smit, Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland, No.846, 827-831.
21
Smit, Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland, No.846.
22
BArch R 901/36645 fol.3-4 Reichsmarineamt aan Staatssekretär des Auswärtigen Amts, 16-3-1919.
23
BArch R 901/36645 fol.59-60 Note by von Simson on a meeting with Dutch envoy Gevers, 21-5-1919.
259
Jeroen Euwe 6
working towards what had been the Dutch position in 1912, were the border was in
the thalweg of the western arm of the Ems, but were asking for compensation in the
form of economic cencessions.
Given the history of the issue, their wishes were few, which is indicative for
the German economic problems at that time. The Dutch could have their way if
German fishermen could fish in the Dutch part of the Ems, and if they would let the
Gemans have a few thousand tonnes of shipping tonnage for a few months, so they
could import foodstuffs from, preferably, the Dutch-East Indies.24 Van Karnebeek
choose to hold off the German offer, arguing that he wanted to keep the Dutch
economic concessions for when the economic relations with Germany were to come
up for negotiation. Then, on 6 January 1920, the German envoy in The Hague
Friedrich Rosen – who one year later became the German Foreign Minister –
informed Van Karnebeek that the German government was willing to forego a Dutch
compensation in the matter of the Ems. It would however, be highly appreciated if
the Dutch government were to keep in mind that any economic accomodation
would be more than welcome.25
Since negotiations for the Coal and Credit Treaty, which entailed a 200 million
guilder credit for raw materials for German industry and for foodstuffs, were going
on at that time, the Germans likely tried to pander to Dutch wishes. Still, the matter
remained with the committee, were talks subsided and the matter once more
disappeared from the agenda of both foreign ministries. Why the Dutch did not
make use of their strong post-war position to attain the solution they had promoted,
is not clear. Although it was never expressly stated, the reason may well have been
related to the Dutch policy of neutrality. The pre-war reports on the matter note,
that if the western part of the Ems were Dutch territory, this meant that neutrality
would have to be enforced here. Although Emden was not a large naval base, there
was significant naval traffic, and Dutch neutrality would almost certainly be infringed
upon. As a report by the Dutch Foreign Ministry stated in 1906, ‘it is undeniable that
if complications were to arise in regards to the Ems estuary, the government […]
24
Barch R 901/36645 fol.33-36, 44-46 Records of a meeting at the German Foreign Office in Berlin, 10-5-1919.
Woltring, DBPvN , No. 198. Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Van Karnebeek aan de gezant te Berlijn Gevers, 9
januari 1920.
25
260
Jeroen Euwe 6
would have a greater freedom of action if the situation remains unresolved.’26 The
fact that the issue had not been settled during the war, had thus been a blessing in
disguise. Since there were no immediate downsides in leaving the matter
unresolved, this might well have led the Dutch to wait and see.
26
Smit, Bescheiden betreffende de buitenlandse politiek van Nederland, No. 644 Nota van het hoofd der eerste
afdeling van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken Rochussen, ongedateerd [circa 14 April 1906], 703-706, there
705.
261
Jeroen Euwe 6
6.5
Conclusions
In matters of diplomacy as well as in economic matters, during the first half of the
1920s the Dutch were in a strong position with respect to Germany. Once the Dutch
had shaken the mistakenly applied stigma of being pro-German war profiteers, and
had become a respected member of the League of Nations and the international
community again, in some instances they promoted the interests of the Germans.
However, this was only done out of economic self-interest. This Dutch ascendency
was also evident in the border dispute over the Ems estuary. The Germans were
willing to adopt the solution the Dutch had been suggesting since before the war,
asking nothing in return but the promise that the Dutch would consider offering
economic assistance. Why the issue nevertheless remained unresolved is not clear,
but this may well have been because the status quo held more advantages than a
solution. As far as the war damages were concerned, the Germans were unwilling to
pay. Only by 1930 serious negotiations between the two countries started about the
amount to be paid and the schedule of payments. This is quite understandable, since
the damages claimed were to the tune of some 26 million guilders. During the 1920s,
damages were only paid for one ship. The ship had belonged to the Koninklijke
Hollandsche Lloyd, where one of those responsible for the Coal and Credit Treaty
was a director. When he threatened that failure to pay would have consequences for
this credit, the Germans accepted that they had to compensate the Dutch for this
loss. Thus, even in purely diplomatic matters, the economic relations trumped
everything.
262
Jeroen Euwe 7
Chapter 7 – Conclusions
7.1
Intertwined economies
The origins of the Dutch-German economic interdependence lie with the coal-based
industrialization in Rhineland-Westphalia that speeded up from the 1860s, and the
intense Dutch ties with the region caused by the fact that the most efficient trading
route of this major industrial centre passed the Netherlands to the sea. Dutch trade
and transport became an essential part of the development of the region. The next
defining moment was the agricultural crisis of the 1870s, which resulted from the
import of cheap grain from the Americas and Russia, made possible by the rapidly
lowering costs of ocean shipping and new railway connections. In the Netherlands
and Germany, the reaction to the crisis was entirely different. The Germans
protected their farmers by instituting high tariffs, but for the Dutch, this was no
option as they had greatly profited from the growth of free trade during the previous
decades. Unable to close their home market from the import of cheap grain, the
Dutch agricultural sector had to adapt to the new circumstances. As the demand for
cereals was met by imports, farmers turned to horticulture, dairy farming, and
breeding cattle, pigs, and poultry. This resulted in even more imports of cereals, to
be used as fodder for the growing livestock, and a growing need for other import
products to be used in intensive agriculture, such as fertilizers.
The increasing specialization of Dutch agricultural production soon exceeded
domestic needs, and the Dutch agricultural sector became increasingly dependent
on exports. Since much of the products were highly perishable, they had to be
exported to nearby countries. Consequently, the growing population of the nearby
German industrial centre in the extended Ruhr area became an important market for
these products. At the same time, the Netherlands industrialized itself and because
the country lacked raw materials, these had to be imported in increasing amounts.
Prime among these was coal, which initially came from England, but which during
the last decade of the century was replaced with Ruhr-sourced coal. The Dutch also
lacked iron ores, and did not have a basic iron or steel industry. For its shipyards and
machine industry, intermediates such as steel sheets were imported from Germany.
263
Jeroen Euwe 7
On top of that, Dutch consumers had by the end of the nineteenth century become
good customers for Solingen cutlery, Thuringian porcelain, and toys from
Württemberg.
The growing mutual trade caused increasing transport flows, both by train
and by barge. Once the larger projects to regulate and canalize the Rhine had been
finished by the end of the nineteenth century, and barges became larger and faster
due to technological advances, Rhine transport became a cheap alternative to rail
transport. From the 1890s, the fast growing volume of Rhine transport helped the
development of the seaports of Rotterdam, and to a far lesser extent Amsterdam
and Antwerp. Between Rotterdam and Antwerp a rivalry ensued that was closely
linked to the rivalry between the railways and Rhine navigation. By the beginning of
the twentieth century, the volume of Rhine traffic surpassed that of the railway
transport to Germany. As the main port of the region, the port of Rotterdam, which
focussed on bulk goods – mostly transported by barge – now surpassed Antwerp,
which focussed on merchandise that was mostly sent by railway. By 1913, the
Netherlands thus had close economic ties with Germany through trade and transit. It
was at least also because of this, that the original Schlieffen-plan – which
encompassed German troop movements to attack France through the Netherlands
and Belgium – was amended to respect the Dutch neutrality. As the German Chief of
Staff Hellmuth von Moltke said already in 1909, ‘…it will be of the utmost
importance to have a country, by means of the Netherlands, whose neutrality will
allow us to continue to import and export. It should be our windpipe, allowing us to
breathe.’
The economic consequences of war and peace
Due to the British blockade of trade with Germany and Germany’s own submarine
warfare, the Netherlands did not really fulfil this function. Dutch exports increasingly
had to be financed by Dutch banks, while imports became ever more difficult. As the
war went on, the Dutch were looking into establishing or further developing their
own basic industries, such as coal mining and an iron and steel industry. Meanwhile,
anti-German feelings were on the rise, due to the German refusal to export essential
materials such as coal and steel unless these were paid in foodstuffs. These were
264
Jeroen Euwe 7
increasingly needed on the Dutch home market. By the end of the war, the Germans
were competing for the post-war Dutch market with the British, who had been a
trading partner of an almost comparable importance to the Dutch.
The post-war Dutch economy had changed, and Germany was in tatters. The
way Germany had become a Republic, the fact that this Republic had been forced to
sue for peace, granted under humiliating conditions, political instability and serious
economic problems, all combined to make the Weimar Republic a highly unstable
construct. The German defeat had devastating consequences. At the Paris Peace
Conference Germany lost important agricultural and industrial areas, as well as
important raw material producing territories. Furthermore, the country had to pay
extensive reparations. This had important effects on the post-war German economy.
First of all, to pay reparations, Germany needed foreign currency which could only
be obtained by an export surplus or by importing great amounts of capital. Realizing
an export surplus was difficult, since compared to the loss of territory, the loss of
population was small, causing a structural need for imported foodstuffs. This was
exacerbated by the loss of iron ores and other raw material reserves, which meant
that imports would now be even higher. These structural problems of the economy
were compounded by monetary instability, depreciation, and inflation. Because the
inflation did not keep pace with the depreciation, this initially helped German
exports. However, as most of Europe dealt with similar problem, markets were
scarce. In addition, German exports mostly were industrial export, for which it
needed imported raw materials and therefore Germany needed hard currency.
Dutch financial experts, businessmen and politicians acknowledging the German
problem, were also aware of the fact that without a German recovery, the Dutch
economy would suffer. While bankers as Ter Meulen of Hope en Co. and Vissering of
the Nederlandsche Bank tried to organize an international loan to finance Germany’s
recovery, prominent businessmen as Van Aalst argued for direct and unilateral
action. A Dutch loan to Germany would help Dutch exports, and by financing the
purchase of raw materials for industry would aid the economic recovery of the
eastern neighbour. Since the Dutch were in desperate need of coal because of the
European coal shortage, the credit could be partly repaid that fuel. The Dutch ports,
265
Jeroen Euwe 7
which were suffering under the decrease in traffic due to the German problems,
would be helped by routing as much of the raw materials as possible through these.
The combination of aid provided out of enlightened self-interest, with palpable
benefits would be a recurring motif in the Dutch efforts to facilitate the German
recovery.
A real German recovery would not start, however, before another three
years. In the meantime, its growing monetary problems would send Germany into a
deep crisis. Quite contrary to what one would expect, this actually caused a deeper
degree of interdependence between the two economies than before. Dutch and
German companies became intertwined to an unprecedented degree. This process
started with large streams of German flight capital searching for a safe haven in
Amsterdam. In its wake, no less than 67 foreign, almost all German banks were
founded in the Netherlands, most of them as legally Dutch firms. That these banks
choose to settle in the Netherlands is not surprising. German banks no longer had
access to London, which prior to the war had financed most of its international
trade, and were in need of a neutral financial centre. The Netherlands offered a
stable currency, favourable tax laws, banking secrecy, and a good location with
regards to German transport flows. Since both countries already had extensive
economic ties, the personal contacts and political willingness to ease the transition
were there.
By the summer of 1920, the role of Amsterdam as a financial centre in
financing German trade had become so important, that the German Consulategeneral described the Dutch guilder as ‘Germany’s gold-backed currency’. In their
words, Germany was ‘basically returning to the world-market under the Dutch flag.’
They were doing so with the help of both the Dutch banks and the Amsterdam
German banks. These banks financed the German imports of raw materials mostly
through acceptances in the form of reimbursement credits, a short-term, mostly
three months credit using the financed goods as collateral. The use of this relatively
secure form of credit was promoted by the Netherlands Bank ever since the popular
form of short-term credit – the prolongatiekrediet – had worsened the credit crunch
at the beginning of the war. As the demand for this type of credit increased, the
policy of the Nederlandsche Bank allowed the acceptance market to expand.
266
Jeroen Euwe 7
After a short period of relative stability, by the spring of 1922, inflation was
again worsening. More and more German companies found it difficult to make a
profit. In the time between the purchase of the raw materials and the sale of the
final products, the inflation destroyed any possible profit. The Amsterdam German
banks, established during the first wave of German investments, now facilitated the
creation of new companies – owned by German companies, yet legally Dutch. Dutch
middlemen and financiers were also active in this field. Whoever facilitated the
process, the procedure was usually the same: between the client and the newly
formed company, a standalone company was placed, to obscure any link between
the firm and the actual founder. Sometimes this was because of the considerable
resentment towards Germans in the countries of the Entente, but probably many
German companies also made use of flight capital. That was illegal. As Germans also
preferred to keep these companies under Dutch tax law, they had many reasons to
obscure the links between a German company and its Dutch daughters.
The German monetary problems not only caused German companies to
invest in the Netherlands, they also caused Dutch companies to do so in Germany.
The declining exchange rate caused Dutch exports to Germany to decrease, as
German price levels were extremely low in strong Dutch guilders. As Dutch industry
was flushed with funds because of their war-time profits, they could use the high
purchasing power of the guilder either by buying existing factories or established
new ones. Thus they deftly combined the evasion of German import restrictions with
the benefits of cheaper production. As a result of these extensive mutual
investments, the German and Dutch economies were already intertwined in a much
more fundamental way than had been the case before the war, before the onset of
the German economic recovery. The strong Dutch guilder also meant that Dutch
imports from Germany recovered quickly. For the same reason, however, imports
from the Netherlands remained low, because they were too expensive. Only once
the German Mark had been stabilized and the recovery began, Dutch exports to its
eastern neighbour increased again. When it did, it was the last step in a process that
included not just the restoration of the Dutch-German economic bonds, but had also
led to a deepening and strengthening of the mutual interdependence. This last step
happened almost overnight with the stabilization of the mark at the end of 1923.
267
Jeroen Euwe 7
Post-war trade relations
Germany’s post-war trade relations changed in two ways: in geographic structure
and in the structure of its imports and exports. Before the war, there was a high
volume of trade with Russia and the Austro-Hungarian Empire. While trade with
Central and Eastern Europe remained important, Central and Eastern Europe itself
had changed and many new states had been formed. Although German exports to
these new countries strongly increased, most of these countries were in a highly
dependent position vis-à-vis Germany. Their trade relations with Germany were of
far greater importance to their economies, than they were to the German economy.
Where the changes were more profound, was in German trade relations with
Western Europe. From having been the second-largest exporter to Great Britain,
France, and Belgium, Germany was now relegated to a position as a minor supplier.
As a market to their products, the country was also less important than it had been
before the war.
Trade relations with the Netherlands, however, recovered instantaneously
once the German currency had stabilized and even became more important than
they had been before the war. Compared to the pre-war situation, the importance of
the Netherlands both as a market and a supplier of Germany had greatly increased.
Whereas before the war, the Dutch share in German imports had been 3 per cent, by
1925 – the first full year of stability, which marked the reversal of the Weimar
Republic’s fortunes – this had doubled to 6 per cent. The Dutch share in German
exports had also increased substantially, from 7 to 11 per cent.
The German need for food imports was at the core of the increased imports
from the Netherlands. That it was its western neighbour that profited, was due to
the fact that with the loss of much of the German industry in the east, the industry
of the extended Ruhr area gained importance. As industry in the region expanded,
the population did as well. The increased German need for food was thus
concentrated in this region. Throughout the 1920s, 65 to 75 per cent of Dutch
exports consisted of foodstuffs, mainly vegetables, fish, meat, and especially dairy
products such as butter and cheese. The destination for the majority of these was
the extended Ruhr area. During the German crisis, only cheese and vegetables still
found a much reduced market in Germany. From 1924, as the German economy
268
Jeroen Euwe 7
recovered, the demand for these products was the first to increase, which explains
the instant and dramatic rise in imports from the Netherlands. The larger Dutch
share in German exports was mostly caused by the increased demand for (semi)manufactured goods such as machines and fertilizers for Dutch industry and
agriculture, for consumer goods such as textiles and hardware, and for raw
materials, especially coal. Throughout the 1920s, Dutch imports from Germany
would rise. It was only in 1930, that they would start to decline. Remarkably
however, once corrected for the drop of the pricelevel, the decrease in imports from
Germany was actually very limited compared with the imports from other countries.
The volume of Dutch exports to its neighbour showed a very different development.
Even when correcting for the price development, once the crisis set in, exports to
Germany decreased at a much faster rate than those to other countries. That this
should be so, is not so much due to the much-maligned German protectionist
policies, but rather an indication of the severity of the economic crisis in Germany.
The Dutch as financier to Germany
As from 1924, the German economic recovery took off the Germans had also
regained access to the international financial markets, and were no longer solely
dependent upon the Dutch. Since they were continuously expanding credit facilities
to the Germans, usually offered cheaper loans than other markets, and because by
now relations between the Dutch financial market and German trade and industry
were close, the Dutch remained a key financier to Germany. In absolute terms, the
United States were by far the most important creditor to Germany, with the Dutch
and British alternating in second place at a considerable distance, but whereas the
Americans – and to a lesser extent the British – mostly lent money to German banks,
the Dutch directly financed trade and industry. In fact, the Dutch were by far the
most important creditor to German trade and industry. Only part of these credits
consisted of acceptance credits, but during its heyday, the Dutch acceptance market
alone still financed some ten per cent of Germany’s imports. The actual importance
of Dutch short-term financial services to the German economy is therefore hard to
overstate.
269
Jeroen Euwe 7
German companies and local governments were also active at the Dutch
capital market. While Amsterdam would remain significantly smaller than London
and New York, throughout the 1922-1930 period the volume of international
emissions in Amsterdam was substantially larger than in Paris or any other
continental market. In 1926 and 1927, Amsterdam even surpassed London in the
volume of German bonds being issued there. Between 1926 and 1928 – the heyday
of Amsterdam as an international financial centre – 40 per cent of the foreign issues
offered were of German origin. Bonds from France, Belgium, and the United States
were also of some importance. Given that it is often impossible to ascertain were
bonds ended up, and statistical data are rare, one cannot draw any conclusions with
regards to how this impacted Dutch-German economic ties. The only available data
are from a survey done by the Nederlandsche Bank in 1933, according to which the
nominal value of the German bonds in Dutch possession amounted to 431 million
guilders, plus shares with a nominal value of 263 million guilders. Long-term loans
were also granted for the construction of barges on Dutch shipyards for German
customers. Germany had to hand over a considerable part of its Rhine fleet in lieu of
reparations, and was unable to finance the replacements. These ships were put into
service under Dutch colours, another instance where the line between Dutch and
German companies became blurred. Transport flows, however, are a clear window
on the geographical structure of Dutch-German economic interdependence.
Transport flows
The post-war development of transport clearly illustrates that the Ruhr industry was
the driving force in the German economic recovery. Between 1925 and 1929,
roughly half of the German goods that were exported by rail originated in the Ruhr.
Rhine shipping, which was the dominant mode of transport in the imports and
exports of bulk goods, also centred on that region. The greater post-war importance
of the Ruhr is evident from the fact that when transport reached its peak in 1927,
the volume of Rhine shipping was 40 per cent larger than it had been in 1913 while
that of railway traffic was only 5 per cent larger. Much of this rail transport was also
related to the extended Ruhr.
270
Jeroen Euwe 7
The Dutch ports and Dutch Rhine barges held a dominant position in Rhine
transport, although here again it has to be said that the term Dutch is relative, due
to the fact that much of the Dutch fleet was actually German and German companies
had also invested in Dutch port facilities. In rail transport, the Dutch share in German
imports and exports was comparable to that of Belgium and France. However, only
part of this traffic was bound for Dutch ports. Most was used for Dutch-German
trade. Based on the transport flows, the extended Ruhr was the main centre of
German export-oriented industry, with the port of Rotterdam, and to a lesser extent
the ports of Antwerp and Hamburg, as its international distribution centres.
271
Jeroen Euwe 7
7.2
German economic policies and their effect on Dutch-German relations
Prior to the war, Germany had protected its agricultural sector through high tariffs.
When war broke out, the need to import foodstuffs had been such that these had
been abolished. Since this need continued after the end of the war, and the price of
imports was high, tariffs had not been reinstated. For many industrial products,
however, tariffs were raised at the time. These affected every German trading
partner the same, since every country had been granted the most-favoured nation
status in response to the Treaty of Versailles, which had forced the Germans to
unilaterally grant this status to all members of the Entente until January 1925. As of
that date, Germany’s trade policy changed. The reparations that it was forced to pay
necessitated either a trade surplus or the import of foreign capital. Now Berlin was
allowed to implement its own trade policy, it introduced a system of tariffs aimed at
providing it with a good negotiating position. However, in spite of the structural
need for food imports, due to pressure by the agricultural sector, the tariffs on
agricultural products were not only reinstituted, but were raised considerably.
In the negotiations for a new trade agreement, which had started at the end
of 1924, the Dutch were treated quite favourably. The Hague was fully aware that it
had nothing to offer, and thus had to convince the Germans of the importance of the
Dutch free trade to the German economy. Berlin, however, was well aware of the
importance of mutual trade, and from the outset promised the Dutch that it would
be no problem for the Netherlands to keep its position as a most-favoured nation.
When agricultural interest groups in the Netherlands started to ask for specific tariff
concessions, however, and Foreign Minister Van Karnebeek tried to include the
transport policy in the trade agreement, the negotiations faltered. Increasing friction
between the Dutch Ministry of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture
caused further delays, and presented Dutch negotiators with the problem that Dutch
wishes were no longer clear nor consistent. Dutch papers and interest groups were
by now declaring that after all the Dutch had done to help the Germans, Berlin was
ungrateful and hostile. In October 1925, when the negotiations picked up steam, the
Germans asked for Dutch compensation by way of a modification of the existing
credit treaty. Originally the treaty was for a revolving credit of 160 mln guilders at an
interest rate of 6%, that was to expire in 1930. The Germans asked for a continuation
272
Jeroen Euwe 7
of the credit for another seven years, and a decrease of the interest rate with half a
per cent. This, the Dutch government was willing to do, and on 26 November 1925
the new trade agreement, known as the Douane- en Credietverdrag – Customs and
Credit Treaty – was signed. Due to strong opposition in the Dutch Second Chamber,
however, the treaty was only ratified nine months later.
The chaotic realization of the trade agreement makes it difficult to gauge
whether the Dutch were treated benevolently or not. The outcome – while not to
the liking of many – seems advantageous to the main Dutch export interests. Tariffs
may have been higher than before, but Dutch exports were taxed at the lowest rate.
The price, the extension of the Dutch credit to German industry, seems reasonable.
Given that the German government was limited by what it could get the Reichstag to
agree with, it seems that the Dutch – whose negotiating position was weakened by
similar issues – were, in fact, to some degree indulged.
Early on, the trade negotiations had become entangled with those about the
transport policy. Early in 1924, Seehafenausnahmetarife – lower railway rates to
German sea ports – were re-introduced in order to route more traffic through the
German North Sea ports. Due to the stipulations of the Versailles Treaty, comparable
rates had to be offered to Belgium, which put the Dutch ports at a disadvantage. In
the ensuing talks with Berlin, The Hague wanted, however, not just the same tariffs
that were granted to the Belgians. Because most of Dutch traffic was with the Ruhr,
which was located closer to the Dutch than to the Belgian border, such rates would
still put Rotterdam at a disadvantage. Rather, the Dutch wanted equality with the
German ports, and by mid-1924 they were already threatening with difficulties over
the Credit Treaty and stating that the matter ‘was threatening to cast a shadow on
the relations between the two countries.’ That autumn, the Dutch obstructed the
German access to the part of the credit that financed the import of Dutch foodstuffs
by the German state. The matter was still unresolved, when in the summer of 1925,
the president of the Nederlandsche Bank threatened he would no longer allow the
Germans to finance their trade over Amsterdam if this trade not in the direct
interests of the Dutch, and would pressure Dutch banks to reduce the volume of the
German credits.
273
Jeroen Euwe 7
All the while, the Germans were willing to talk about putting the Netherlands
on equal footing with Belgium, but would not do so with regards to the German
North Sea ports. Even Vissering’s threat, which caused quite a stir and led to him
being in private talks with Reichskanzler Hans Luther, Foreign Minister Gustav
Stresemann, and many other German dignitaries, could not sway them. Only when
on 26 November 1925 the new Dutch-German trade agreement was signed, the
Germans – voluntarily and without asking for compensation – promise that within
eight months the Netherlands would be treated on equal footing with Belgium. They
waited for the Dutch to ratify the trade agreement before taking action, however,
and since the Dutch parliament was late in doing so, it was October 1926 when the
Dutch were granted equal rights, but not by reducing the railway tariifs for the
Dutch, but by retracting the lower rates for Belgium. Thus, it became entirely a
matter of domestic transport policy. That it was not resolved earlier, is most
probably due to a combination of Dutch negotiating tactics, and because – akin to
what happened in the setting of tariffs for the German trade policy – interest groups
were at work. In this case, the German North Sea ports were in conflict with German
cities who had interests in Rhine shipping, and parts of Central-German industry.
Quite in contrast to the way the Dutch government approached the matter,
the transport sector showed considerable restraint when it came to joining forces
with German relations to combat the Seehafenausnahmetarife. Here again, a parallel
may be drawn to the trade relations: as detrimental as the German policy may have
been, the volume of transport was growing, and Rotterdam increasingly outpaced
Hamburg in throughput. Furthermore, in these circles – once the Belgian advantage
had been removed – it was regarded as a matter of standard domestic policy. As the
Dutch railways would state in 1933, ‘Such things are done in every country.’
Further trade conflicts
As the German agricultural sector increased its output, but from 1927 it was struck
by the world-wide agricultural crisis, and the Reich government was pressured to
protect its home market. As the German market for industrial products and for raw
materials was also increasingly shut off from imports, Dutch disenchantment with
the Germans was growing, but as long exports to Germany were growing, this never
274
Jeroen Euwe 7
had any real consequences. Only when in 1929, the exports of the most important
Dutch export product to Germany, butter, was threatened, did the Dutch public
opinion turn decidedly negative toward Germany. In the summer of 1930, a massive
boycott of German products caused a concerted effort of German industrial
interests. Their efforts managed to supersede those of the agricultural sector. The
German plans to raise the tariff on butter were shelved, but only for a few months.
Then import quotas were instituted as pressure from the German farmers became
even more dangerous, not just for the German economy, but even for the Republic,
than a Dutch boycott ever could be.
Real political problems only started when the German economy was in crisis
and imports – especially of Dutch luxury foodstuffs such as butter – were decreasing
regardless of tariffs or quota. Until then, whenever this was in their interest and the
costs were not too high, the Germans indulged the Dutch. Berlin was aware that
imports of foodstuffs were a necessity, although this need became less as the output
of German agriculture increased. High tariffs were therefore not so much a necessity
as an accomodation of agricultural interests, balanced with the export-oriented
interests of the German industry. By the end of 1930, the crisis at home and the
decrease of exports meant that this became a luxury they could no longer afford.
Meanwhile, political relations that were not immediately connected to the
economic bonds between Germany and the Netherlands were scarce. Interestingly,
once the Dutch were no longer politically isolated, they tried to help Germany to
overcome its isolation, to promote the granting of credits, and during the occupation
of the Ruhr by lobbying with the British Foreign Ministry to have them speak out
against this Franco-Belgian adventure. Ultimately, this was all motivated by Dutch
economic self-interest. Even in the resolution of war damages caused by the
Germans and the border dispute over the Ems estuary, negotiations were shaped by
economic aspects. Economic relations permeated every aspect of Dutch-German
relations.
275
Jeroen Euwe 7
7.3
The resilience of Dutch-German interdependence and its effect on political
relations
World War I and its immediate aftermath formed a threat to the continuation of the
mutually profitable bonds that had marked pre-war Dutch-German relations.
However, quite contrary to what the low volume of trade and transport seemed to
indicate, already during the first post-war years both economies became more
intertwined than they had been before. Depreciation and inflation, the payment of
reparations, the loss of territories, political instability, and the initial post-war chaos
caused immense problems in Germany. Yet this German crisis would also cause the
Dutch financial market to focus on financing German trade and industry, and would
lead to extensive mutual foreign direct investments in banks, industry, trade, and
transport. Although such investments were also done before the war, the scale and
nature of these investments was incomparable to what had happened before. It was
this process, coupled to the increased importance of the Ruhr within the German
economy that – once the recovery started in 1924 – the interdependence of both
economies deepened and expanded to a level that had never reached before.
At the most basic level, it can be said that the Dutch fed the population of the
extended Ruhr and bought the products of its industry. Since much of Dutch trade
consisted of foodstuffs that were either expensive or easily substituted, the level of
mutual trade was determined more by the economic circumstances than by trade
policy. The trade policy with regards to the part of Dutch exports that fulfilled
Germany’s primary needs – vegetables and other cheap foodstuffs – was less
restrictive, and the demand for these products was also less sensitive to economic
fluctuations. As a result, when Germany was hit by the Great Depression, Dutch
exports to this country declined much less than those of most other countries.
The structure of the economic relations also explains much about how the
political relations between these two countries were structured. In view of the
nature of Dutch trade with Germany, it is understandable that on the Dutch side
these received close attention at the level of the Foreign Minister and Minsters of
Trade and Industry and of Agriculture. In the same vein, it is understandable why in
Germany these would be dealt with at a much lower level – that of undersecretary
276
Jeroen Euwe 7
at the Foreign Office. The German archives show no direct involvement of the
Foreign Minister. Only when relations suddenly worsened – as during Vissering’s
action in of 1925 – would matters be deffered to a higher level. In case of such
crises, the importance of the German relation with the Dutch became visible, also at
the German side, as it was the very highest level, the Reichskanzler personally, that
then became involved. Dutch-German economic relations were inherently tight, and
therefore of an imense importance for both countries. For that reason, as soon as
these relations were under serious threat, the problem was dealt with at the very
highest level, not just in The Hague, but also in Berlin.
277
Jeroen Euwe 7
7.4
Interdependence theory
The theoretical framework of interdependence that was chosen for this study has
shaped its structure. An analysis of how the various liberal and (neo-)realist models
determine economic interdependence led to the realization that such an interplay
between two economies is governed by more than trade only. Neither does an
attempt to determine how much of each country’s GDP is linked to economic
relations with its partner provide much information on how their economies are
intertwined. It is exactly this information that would be useful in gauging the
strength and stability of such bonds, and can also be of help in studying their political
relations. Once this has been acknowledged, the approach to analyse economic
relations should be by studying not just the monetary value of the economic
transactions between the countries, but also of their structure, and an appreciation
of the subtle – yet important – and varied ways in which economies interact. This is
why the choice was made to look deeper into the nature of the financial services,
the mutual investments, and how these relate to not only trade, but to transport as
well. Likewise, an understanding of not just the volume of trade and transport, but
also of their make-up and destination has provided insights into their development
and stability. Together, they help explain how it not just was the government, but
also the interaction of that government with interest groups operating within and
outside Parliament that shapes political relations, that decide a policy that can
sometimes be mutually detrimental to these economic relations. The focus on the
structure of economic interdependence has also helped to explain why in this case
the Dutch-German economic interdependence showed such resilience, and – due to
the increased importance of the extended Ruhr to the German economy – became
even stronger than it had been before. In this regards, a comparison to the
restoration of the German-Dutch economic relations after World War II – which have
been analysed by Martijn Lak in his aptly named dissertation ‘Because we need
them…’ – yields interesting results.
Looking at the political consequences of the Dutch-German interdependence, it has
become clear that the government-to-government analytical framework as often
used is severely limited. In both trade policies – the trade negotiations of 1924-1925
278
Jeroen Euwe 7
– and transport policies – the Seehafenausnahmetarife – the German government
was indeed quite willing to accommodate the Dutch. That the focus of DutchGerman interdependence was on Dutch relations with the extended Ruhr, meant
that such benevolence was predicated on the influence of the export-oriented
industry that was based there, combined with that of other interest groups - (such as
the Länder along the Rhine, or the Central-German industry – whose interests at
times converged with that of the Ruhr industry. At different times and for different
reasons, the considerable influence of its export-oriented industry was negated,
however, in favour of that of the ports of Hamburg and Bremen or the agricultural
sector. During the period 1918-1931, the Dutch-German diplomatic relations seem
therefore to support the liberal concept of the interdependence theories and its
effects on diplomatic relations, but with the proviso that one should be aware that
the policies that shaped these relations were the result of interaction between
government policy and interest groups. The actions of these interest groups were at
times undertaken in collaboration with their Dutch counterparts. The importance of
cross-border commercial relations was evident in the ties between the Dutch and
German Chambers of Commerce, as well as in industry and – given the relatively low
impact of the Seehafenausnahmetarife on transit traffic with the Netherlands –
especially in the transport sector. In the final analysis, while two states may be
interdependent on an economic level, it is the balance of power between the
economic interest groups within either state that ultimately determines how these
states interact in matters of economic diplomacy. As such, the economic structure
and geographic spread of economic activities of either state therefore play an
important part in this process.
279
Sources
Archives
Archief De Nederlandsche Bank, Amsterdam
1.121/245/1 DNB, correspondentie met mr. G. Vissering, allerhande onderwerpen o.a.
oprichting BIB, Reichsbank, kredieten Oost Europa, afgifte goud aan Duitsland, 19241930;
2.1/14/1, Bevorderen betalingsverkeer met het buitenland, bijzonderheden en relaties
betreffende circulatiebanken en buitenlandse banken, 1-1-1837 tot 31-12-1919
2.1/15/1, Bevorderen betalingsverkeer met het buitenland, 1-1-1826 tot 31-12-1936;
2.1/18/1, Bevorderen betalingsverkeer met het buitenland, vestigingen van
buitenlandse banken in Amsterdam, discontofaciliteiten, 1918-1931;
2.1/44/1 Rijksfondsen in Duitsland die niet bij de Rijksbank berusten, 1925-1925;
2.1/176/1, Discontopolitiek, 1-1-1923 tot 31-12-1923;
2.1/177/1, Plan Ter Meulen, uitgifte obligaties geldnemenden staat, 1-1-1922 tot 31-121922;
2.1/332/1 Kredietverlening aan het buitenland, Duitsland, Verenigs Koninkrijk,
Verenigde Staten van Amerika, plan Ter Meulen, 1916-1921;
2.111.3/121/1, Schaarste aan zilverbons, grote aantallen bevinden zich in Duitsland,
1923;
2.112/10/1 oudpolitiek; afgifte gouden munt binnenlandse circulatie; het voor de
binnenlandse circulatie afgegeven Nederlandse goudgeld wordt met agio naar Duitsland
uitgevoerd, 1930-1935;
2.113/127/1 Speciaal krediet ten behoeve van de ondersteuning van armlastige
Nederlanders in Duitsland, 1924-1924;
2.12/7/1 Stillhalte overeenkomst Nederlandse bankiers tegenover Duitsland, 1931-1933;
2.12/34/1 Geheime verklaringen inzake Duits krediet, 1916;
2.12/53/1 Clearing Nederland Duitsland; handelsverdragen, 1852-1939;
2.12/57/1 Clearing Nederland Duitsland; handelsverdragen, 1932-1940;
2.12/82/1 Clearing Nederland Duitsland, 1932-1946;
2.12/282/1, Geldmarktbeleid, discontopolitiek faciliteiten aan wisselmakelaars, speciale
belenings- en discontofaciliteit.
2.12/517/1 Geldmarktbeleid, discontopolitiek, 1871-1924;
280
2.121/153/1 Duits krediet, onderpand Duitse industrie en schatkistwissels, 1918-1920;
2.121/154/1 Duits krediet door Lippomann Rosenthal & Co, Rotterdamsche
Bankvereeniging en Amsterdamsche Bank (onderpand Duitse effecten), 1915-1919;
2.121/166/1 Duitsland, kredieten op schatkistpapier, 1917;
2.121/167/1 Duitsland, beleenbaarheid 5 ½ % obligaties, 1930;
2.121.3/8/1 Kredieten waarbij het buitenland betrokken is, n&e kredieten, 1925-1932;
2.121.3/10/1, Arrangement betreffende discontabiliteit van wissels waaraan
goederentransacties met het buitenland ten grondslag liggen.
2.132/143/1 Regeringskredieten 1914-1918 (eventuele verlenging); besprekingen m.b.t.
de aan Duitsland verstrekte kredieten, 1918-1919;
2.132/144/1 Regeringskredieten 1914-1918 (eventuele verlenging); verzoek ministerie
van Buitenlandse Zaken om inlichtingen m.b.t. kredietverlening aan Duitsland, 19211926;
2.132/151/1 Regeringskredieten 1914-1918; vrelenging na de oorlog; verlenging Duitse
kredieten, 1918-1919;
2.132/151/2 Regeringskredieten 1914-1918; verlenging kredieten na de oorlog;
verlenging Duitse kredieten, 1918-1919;
2.132/152/1 Regeringskredieten 1914-1918; verlenging kredieten na de oorlog; opgaven
kredieten Duitsland, 1918-1919;
2.132/153/1 Regeringskredieten 1914-1918; verlenging kredieten na de oorlog; Duitse
kredieten, 1919;
2.2/1568/1 Bewaarneming en belening, enquete vordering op Duitsland, 1933
2.2/1802/1 Duitsland; IJzer en Kolenkrediet; Vereeniging voor den Geldhandel, 19161926;
2.3/63/1, De Amsterdamse wisselmarkt
2.3/501/1 Duitslands schulden, 1931-1932;
2.3/544/1 Kapitaalmarkt, emissies te Amsterdam, 1928-1931;
2.3/608/1 Toezicht kapitaalmarkt, plaatsen van buitenlandse emissies op Nederlandse
kapitaalmarkt, principieel, 1922-1922;
2.3/681/1, Discontering, 1917-1936;
2.3/692/1 Duitslands schulden, 1932-1941;
2.3/778/1 Klein monetair beleid valutamarktbeleid, valutamarkt in Nederland, 19141942;
281
2.3/2079/1, Invloed wegtrekken buitenlandsche saldi op positie Nederlandsche gulden,
1922;
2.3/2084/1 Stillhalte tegenover Duitsland, 1931;
2.3/2165/1 Besprekingen van de president met Buitenlandse Zaken september 1917,
o.a. kolen, ijzer, en staalkwestie met Duitsland, 1917;
2.3/2184/1 Verhoging van duitse invoerrechten op tabak, 1930;
2.3/2486/1 Ministerie van economische zaken, nota's betreffende economische
toestand, bankwezen, botervraagstuk, 1922-1939;
2.3/3053/1, Duitse emissies in Nederland, Office des Paiements de Reparations, 19241926;
2.3/3055/1; Commissie voor de herziening van handelsverdragen, subcommissie voor
Duitsland, 1915-1930;
2.3/3060/1, Politieke aangelegenheden geassocieerden Duitsland, Duitse eigendommen
in de Verenigde Staten, lord Robert Cecil, ontwerpwaarborgverdrag voor de vrede
(Volkenbond juni 1923), Kellog pact, 1919-1924;
2.3/3061/1 Besprekingen met ministers, 1914-1928;
2.3/3071/1 Staatscommissie voor de economische politiek, 1917-1930;
2.3/3071/2 Staatscommissie voor de economische politiek, 1917-1930;
2.3/3072/1 Commissie voor de economische aangelegenheden met buitenland, 19181921;
2.3/3073/1 Commissie voor de economische aangelegenheden met buitenland, 19181921;
2.3/3174/1 Geldmarkt nota's, kranteknipsels, rapport; fa Pierson, nrc, uitgifte
schatkistpapier, Amsterdamse effectenmarkt en financieel centrum, discontomarkt,
continental, Zwitserland, goudcommissie Posthumus Meyjes, prof Cassel, directie,
1925-1925;
2.3/3219/1 Betalingsverkeer met Duitsland, Stillhaltung, 1931-1932;
2.3/3483/1 Betalingsverkeer Nederland-Duitsland, Stillhaltung report, commmittee
appointed on the recommendation on London conference, agreement between bank
creditors, nota Repelius, enquete bij particuliere banken en bankiers, 1931-1940;
7/61/1 Duitse Rijksbank, 1929-1934;
7/62/1 Duitse Rijksbank, 1931-1940;
7/263/1 Duitsland, Tredefina historische verzichten van de Tredefinakredieten I, II en III,
1931-1959;
7/264/1 Duitsland, Tredefina I, voorgeschiedenis, o.a. notulen van diverse
282
vergaderingen en besprekingen, DNB heeft bedenkingen tegen de contracten, 19191920;
7/265/1 Duitsland, Tredefina I, Algemeen, 1920-1943;
7/266/1 Duitsland, TredefinaI, administratie, 1921-1939;
7/268/1 Duitsland, Tredefina I, Treuhandvewaltung ziet af van haar verzoek dat DNB zich
voor iedere dispositie door een handelsbank zou overtuigen van de speciale
goedkeuring der Treuhandverwaltung, 1922;
7/270/1 Duitsland, Tredefina I, kamerstukken, 1920;
7/271/1 Duitsland, Tredefina, DNB fungeert in deze slechts als kassier van de staat,
1925-1935;
7/272/1 Duitsland, Tredefina I, enige kredietaffaires, 1922-1926;
7/274/1 Duitsland, Tredefina I, persberichten, 1920-1938;
7/300/1, Vergaderingen en besprekingen betreffende de oprichting in Nederland van de
Vereeniging voor den goederenruil. February -June 1920.
7/371/1 Nederlandsche Uitvoer Maatschappij, Bezoek van Paul May bij de president,
voorstel president on nieuw tussenlichaam te creëren t.b.v grote buitenlandse
kredieten, afbetaling Duitse kredieten, bezoek Prof. Landesberger, 1919;
7/831/1, Vestiging van buitenlandse banken in Nederland, 1921-1928;
8/77/1 Duitsland, Duitse handel, 1930-1939;
8/331/1 Duitsland, goudvraagstuk, 1930;
8/1112/1, Internationale besprekingen conferentie te Berlijn, okt-nov 1922, stabilisatie
Duitse mark, 1922;
8/1127/1, Internationale besprekingen conferentie Berlijn, okt-nov 1922, stabilisatie van
de Duitse mark, diverse stukken nagelaten door De Beaufort, 1922;
8/1383/1 Bank for International Settlements, Duitsland, crisis 1930, steunkrediet aan
Reichsbank, Stillhaltung, invoering Reichsmark, Duitse bankwet, 1931-1939;
8/1384/1 Bank for International Settlements, Duitsland, Dawes (1924) en Young (1930),
transferkwestie, 1931-1937;
8/1433/1 Duitsland, Stillhaltung kredietovereenkomst, schuldenkwestie,
tabaksmonopolie in Duitsland, 1931-1940;
8/1489/1, Duitse Reichsbank , 1926-1931;
8/1499/1, Duitsland internationale lening, 1922;
8/1500/1, Duitsland internationale lening, 1922;
283
8/1500/2, Duitsland internationale lening, 1922;
8/1501/1, Duitschland, conferenties met Duitsers, valorisatie, tarievenkwestie
markenportefeuille DNB van voor 1914, 1919-1931;
8/1501/2, Duitsland, conferenties met Duitsers, valorisatie, tarievenkwestie
markenportefeuille DNB van voor 1914, 1919-1931;
8/1502/1, Duitsland, Goldnotenbank, 1924;
8/1503/1, Duitsland, maatregelen tot hervorming der valuta, 1924-1927;
8/1504/1, Duitsland, project tot oprichting van een nieuwe circulatiebank, 1923-1924;
8/1504/2, Duitsland, project tot oprichting van een nieuwe circulatiebank, 1923-1924;
8/1507/1, Internationale besprekingen conferentie te Genua; reis naar Zwitserland en
Duitsland; conferentie Zwitserse financiers te Bern, 1921-1922;
8/1507/2, Internationale besprekingen conferentie te Genua; reis naar Zwitserland en
Duitsland; conferentie Zwitserse financiers te Bern, 1921-1922;
8/1507/3, Internationale besprekingen conferentie te Genua; reis naar Zwitserland en
Duitsland; conferentie Zwitserse financiers te Bern, 1921-1922;
8/1507/4, Internationale besprekingen conferentie te Genua; reis naar Zwitserland en
Duitsland; conferentie Zwitserse financiers te Bern, 1921-1922;
8/1510/1, Internationale besprekingen conferentie te Berlijn, okt-nov 1922, stabilisatie
Duitse mark, 1922-1923;
8/1513/1, Internationale besprekingen conferentie te Berlijn, okt-nov 1922, stabilisatie
Duitse mark, rapporten van de financiële deskundigen, 1922-1923;
8/1514/1, Internationale besprekingen mr. G. Vissering naar Parijs, nov. 1922,
stabilisatie Duitse mark, 1922;
8/1529/1, Internationale economische conferentie te Brussel, correspondentie met
Duitsland, dr.Melchior, M.M. Warburg & co te Hamburg en met Oostenrijk, prof.
Schnabel, 1919-1920;
8/1582/1, Duitsland, economische toestand, schadevergoeding, valuta,
betalingscapaciteit, 1919-1924;
8.2/20/1 Duitsland financiele moeilijkheden 1931, onderhandelingen stillhalte
overeenkomst o.m. tussen DNB, Bank of England, BIB en bankiersverenigingen dr H.
Luther, Paul May, M. Norman, 1930-1931;
8.2/20/2 Duitsland financiele moeilijkheden 1931, onderhandelingen stillhalte
overeenkomst o.m. tussen DNB, Bank of England, BIB en bankiersverenigingen dr H.
Luther, Paul May, M. Norman, 1930-1931;
8.2/20/3 Duitsland financiele moeilijkheden 1931, onderhandelingen stillhalte
284
overeenkomst o.m. tussen DNB, Bank of England, BIB en bankiersverenigingen dr H.
Luther, Paul May, M. Norman, 1930-1931;
8.2/21/1 Duitsland, Duitse handelspolitiek tegenover Nederland, tariefwetgeving,
invoerrechten, 1924-1925;
8.2/22/1 Duitsland, Stillhalte overeenkomst, vorderingen van Nederlandse banken op
Duitsland, cijfers per 31 augusteus 1931, enquete van 4 september 1931, 1931;
8.2/37/1 Duitsland, Stillhalte overeenkomst, vorderingen van Nederlandse banken op
Duitsland, cijfers van 31 juli en 31 oktober 1931, enquete van 30 november 1931, 1931;
8.2/252/1 Duitsland, Reichsbank, Berlijn, Reichsbanknoten, correspondentie dr. Hjalmar
Schacht, 1923-1940;
8.2/615/1 Duitsland, stillhalte overeenkomst, Treuhand overeenkomst, tekst van
overeenkomst, financiële en statistische gegevens, buitenlandse verplichtingen van
Duitsland, 1931-1937;
8.2/2060/1, Duitsland, Duitse rijksbank, diversen, 1922-1939;
8.2/2062/1 Duitsland, Mendelssohn & co, wisselportefeuille, 1920-1925;
8.2/2066/1 Duitsland, Mendelssohn & co, diversen, 1918-1927;
8.2/2068/1 Duitsland, M.M. Warburg & co, diversen, 1920-1930;
8.2/2072/1 Duitsland, M.M. Warburg & co, wisselportefeuille, 1920-1929;
8.2/2074/1 Duitsland, M.M. Warburg & co, Disconto Gesellschaft, algemeen, 1919-1929;
8.2/2075/1 Duitsland, Dresdner Bank, Proehl & Gutman op bezoek bij DNB, 1921-1924;
8.2/2228/1 Duitsland, kredietverstrekking mede gezien in het licht der door Duitsland
ingevoerde spoorweg en haventarieven die een discriminatie voor Nederland inhouden,
1924-1925;
8.2/2256/1 Duitsland, schuldenconferentie Bazel, 1931;
8.2/2268/1 Duitsland, valorisatie wet, DNB zal i.s.m. andere banken en bankiers
meewerken bij de inlevering der opgeroepen Duitse rijksfondsen, alleen voor
bewaargevers bij de bank. leningen geweigerd, 1925-1926;
9.2/738/1 Bank Associatie N.V. Amsterdam, correspondentie met het buitenland, Duitse
banken en financiële instellingen, 1928-1930;
Archief van de Commissie van Advies, 1919-1943, inv. nr. 3316 - 3328. Minutes of
meetings of the Advisory Committee 1920-1931.
National Archives, The Hague
2.04.57: Inventaris van het archief van het Ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken: Afdeling
Binnenlands Bestuur, (1870) 1879-1950 (1959);
285
2.05.01: Inventaris van de afdelingsarchieven van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse zaken
1813-1870;
2.05.03: Inventaris van het archief van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: ADossiers, 1815-1940;
2.05.18: Inventaris van het Kabinetsarchief e.a. van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse
Zaken, 1871-1940;
2.05.19: Inventaris van het Kabinetsarchief van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken
betreffende de Politieke Rapportage door Nederlandse Diplomatieke
Vertegenwoordigers in het Buitenland, 1871-1940;
2.05.25: Inventaris van het archief van de Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken H.A. van
Karnebeek, 1918-1927;
2.05.32.05: Inventaris van het archief van de Raad van Bijstand der Directie voor de
Buitenlandse Economische Politiek van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, 19181932
2.05.32.09: Inventaris van het archief van het Bureau voor Zeeoorlogsschade van het
Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken, 1919-1940;
2.05.32.18: Inventaris van het archief van de Nederlands-Duitse Commissie voor het
Duitse Krediet, 1921-1924
2.05.32.26: Inventaris van het archief van de Rijnvaartcommissaris, 1868-1940; met
aanhangende documenten betreffende de Rijnvaart, 1832-1947
2.05.32.30: Inventaris van de archieven van de Nederlandse (Vice) Consulaten(Generaal) te Frankfurt aan de Main, 1860-1940; Munster, 1915-1940; Embden, 19211940; Kiel-Holtenau, 1931-1940, en Lübeck, 1935- 1940
2.05.34: Inventaris van de toegangen op de Afdelingsarchieven van het Ministerie van
Buitenlandse Zaken 1871-1940;
2.05.37: Inventaris van de Directie Economische Zaken van het Ministerie van
Buitenlandse Zaken 1919-1940;
2.05.38: Inventaris van het archief van het Ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken: B-dossiers
(Consulaire- en Handelsaangelegenheden), (1858) 1871-1940 (1955);
2.05.40: Inventaris van het archief van de Commissie van Advies voor Volkenrechtelijke
Vraagstukken, (1911) 1920-1940;
2.05.48.01: Inventaris van de restbescheiden behorend tot het archief van het ministerie
van Buitenlandse Zaken 1871-1940 welke buiten de chronologische en dossierordeningen zijn komen te staan;
2.06.001: Inventaris van het archief van de Directie van Handel en Nijverheid, 19051943; en voorgangers, met de werkarchieven van Minister Steenberghe, H.M. Hirschfeld
en van enkele Commissies, (1815) 1905- 1943 (1946);
286
2.06.065: Inventaris van het archief van de Commissie van Advies Crisisinvoerwet, 19311940;
2.06.074.01: Inventaris van de archieven van de Afdeling Algemeen Secretariaat van de
Ministeries van Economische Zaken en van Landbouw en Visserij en hun voorgangers,
1918-1945;
2.08.26: Inventaris van het archief van de Regeringscommissaris voor het NederlandsDuits Credietverdrag van 1920, 1919-1946;
2.08.41: Inventaris van het archief van het Ministerie van Financiën: Dossierarchief,
(1814) 1831-1940 (1946);
2.09.22: Inventaris van de archieven van het Ministerie van Justitie: Verbaalarchief,
(1853) 1915-1955 (1963); Kabinetsarchief, (1907) 1915-1940;
2.09.45: Inventaris van het archief van de Rijksvreemdelingendienst (RVD) en
taakvoorgangers van het Ministerie van Justitie, 1918-1945 (-1981);
2.11.08.02: Inventaris van het archief van de Directie van de Landbouw: Afdeling
Landbouw-Economische Aangelegenheden;
2.12.18: Inventaris van het archief van de Koninklijke Marine: Chef van de Marinestaf te
's-Gravenhage, 1886-1942;
2.16.23.01: Inventaris van het archief van het Ministerie van Waterstaat, Afdeling
Spoorwegen, 1906-1926, Afdeling Vervoer- en Mijnwezen, 1927-1940 en Afdeling
Vervoerwezen, 1940-1945;
2.16.23.02: Inventaris van het archief van het Ministerie van Waterstaat, Afdeling
Scheepvaart, 1923-1926;
2.18.29: Inventaris van het archief van de Nederlandse Spaarbankbond (NSBB), 19062000;
2.21.014: Inventaris van het archief van het geslacht Asser, (1610) 1797-1940;
2.21.060: Inventaris van het archief van prof. jhr. mr. W.J.M. van Eysinga [levensjaren
1878-1961], 1907-1958 (1968);
3.17.17.04: Inventaris van de archieven van de Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken
voor Rotterdam, 1922- 1969.
Gemeentearchief Rotterdam
Toegangsnummer 72.10: Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken te Rotterdam, 1803-1921.
Bundesarchiv, Berlin
R 2 Reichsfinanzministerium
R 5 Reichsverkehrsministerium
287
R 43 Reichskanzlei
R 401 Vorläufiger Reichswirtschaftsrat
R 601 Büro des Reichspräsidenten
R 703 Stellvertreter des Reichskanzlers Friedrich von Payer
R 704 Kriegsstelle zur Vorbereitung der Wirtschaftsfragen für die Friedensverhandlungen
R 901 Auswärtiges Amt
R 3101 Reichswirtschaftsministerium
Politisches Archiv des Auswärtiges Amt, Berlin
Niederlande
Büro des Reichsministers
Büro des Staatssekretärs
Geheime Akten
Unterstaatssekretär für Wirtschaft
Handakten K. Ritter
Published sources
Smit, C., ed., Bescheiden betreffende de Buitenlandse Politiek van Nederland 1848-1919.
Derde Periode 1899-1919 (The Hague 1964);
Woltring, J., ed., Bescheiden betreffende de Buitenlandse Politiek van Nederland 19191945, Periode A 1919-1930 (Den Haag 1976-1992);
Klaassen, W.J.M., and J. Woltring, eds., Bescheiden betreffende de Buitenlandse Politiek
van Nederland 1919-1945, Periode B 1931-1940, Deel I (Den Haag 1985);
Newspapers
‘De “Tubantia”’, Algemeen Handelsblad, 17-03-1916 Ochtend;
‘Een edelmoedig aanbod’, Algemeen Handelsblad, 19-10-1918;
‘Effecten- en Geldmarkt. Wekelijksch overzicht.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 20-11-1926
Avond;
‘De Na-Dorst’, Algemeen Handelsblad, 19-10-1918, Ochtend;
‘Effecten- en Geldmarkt. Wekelijks overzicht.’ Bijvoegsel Algemeen Handelsblad (27
February 1926);
288
‘Geld- en Effectenmarkt, Veertiendaagsch overzicht’, Algemeen Handelsblad 28-091924, Ochtend;
‘De internationale economische toestand.’ Het Centrum, 03-01-1920 Dag;
‘Onze handel met Duitschland.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 11-01-1920, Ochtend;
‘Het koopen door Nederlanders in Duitsche grensplaatsen.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 2102-1920;
‘Pleidooi voor opname Duitsche emissies in notering prijscourant Vereeniging voor de
Effectenhandel.’ Supplement Algemeen Handelsblad, 26-09-1925;
‘De groote uitverkoop.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 19-11-1921, Avond;
‘Belemmering invoer van land- en tuinbouwproducten in Duitschland. Hevige strijd over
het ingediende protectie-ontwerp.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 17-01-1925, Avond;
‘Een verklaring van dr. Schacht’, Algemeen Handelsblad, 20-06-1925, Ochtend;
‘Actie tegen de Duitsche valorisatie.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 24-09-1925;
‘Rede van de Voorzitter van de Amsterdamsche Kamer van Koophandel, Ernst Heldring,
over het jaar 1925.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 6-01-1926, Ochtend;
‘Valorisatie in Duitschland. De tegenwoordige stand’, Algemeen Handelsblad, 14-081926, Avond;
‘Actieve handelspolitiek.’ Algemeen Handelsblad, 15-11-1928, Avond
‘’t Is ook nooit goed.’’ Het Centrum, 03-01-1920, Dag;
‘Die Stellung der ‚Amsterdamsche Bank’ zur deutschen Reichsanleihe’, Deutsche
Wochenzeitung für die Niederlande, 21-11-1915;
‘De Markenkoers.’ H.D. de Vos’ Wekelijksch Uitlotingsblad, 1-09-1921;
De Kroniek van Dr. A. Sternheim. Halfmaandelijksch tijdschrift voor economie – financiën
– statistiek – bedrijfshuishoudkunde, 1-07-1925;
‘Schetsen van de Geld- en Fondsenmarkt.’ 26 November – 3 December.’ Nieuwe
Rotterdamsche Courant, 05-12-1920, Ochtend;
‘Schetsen van Geld- en Fondsenmarkt.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 5-12-1920,
Ochtend;
‘Opengelaten punten.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 4-11-1924, Avond;
‘Actieve handelspolitiek.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 15-12-1925, Avond;
‘De Duitse Spoorwegtarieven.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant, 14-07-1927;
‘Amsterdam als internationaal financieel centrum. I.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant,
19-9-1925;
289
‘Amsterdam als internationaal financieel centrum. II.’ Nieuwe Rotterdamsche Courant,
20-9-1925;
‘Oeconomische en Financieele Mededeelingen, Emissies in 1927’, Nieuwe
Rotterdamsche Courant, 1-1-1928, Ochtend;
‘De dalende mark. Hoog-conjunctuur en beurswinst.’ De Telegraaf, 4-10-1921;
‘Pleidooi voor opname Duitsche emissies in de notering prijscourant
Ver.v.Effectenhandel’, De Telegraaf, 1-10-1925, Ochtend;
‘De koers van de mark.’ Het Vaderland, 27-06-1920, Ochtend;
‘De valorisatie in Duitschland’, Het Vaderland, 11-07-1925, Avond;
‘Vereeniging Effectenbescherming’, Het Vaderland, 28-02-1926 Ochtend.
Websites
F.M.M. Goey, (2003), Database on cargo flows in the port of Rotterdam, 1880-2000;
Goederenoverslag Rotterdamse haven, 1880-2000.
https://easy.dans.knaw.nl/ui/datasets/id/easy-dataset:39487 (accessed on
17/10/2012);
Groningen Growth and Development Centre, National historical accounts database,
http://www.rug.nl/feb/Onderzoek/Onderzoekscentra/GGDC/databases (accessed 1710-2012);
Handelingen der Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal,
http://www.statengeneraaldigitaal.nl (accessed 17-10-2012);
Handelingen der Eerste Kamer der Staten-Generaal,
http://www.statengeneraaldigitaal.nl (accessed 17-10-2012);
The United Nations Centre on Transnational Corporations,
http://unctc.unctad.org/aspx/index.aspx (accessed 24-9-2011).
290
Literature
-
‘Aantekeningen. De zeehavenuitzonderingstarieven der Duitsche Spoorwegen; het
Duitsche standpunt.’ Economisch Statistische Berichten (10-3-1926) 235-237;
-
Abelshauser, Werner, ‘Wirtschaft, Staat und Arbeitsmarkt 1914-1945’, in W.
Köllmann, H. Korte, D. Petzina and W. Weber (eds.), Das Ruhrgebiet im
Industriezeitalter: Geschichte und Entwicklung, Band 1 (Düsseldorf 1990);
-
Abraham, David, ‘Conflicts within German Industry and the Collapse of the Weimar
Republic’, Past & Present, No. 88 (Aug., 1980) 88-128;
-
Adenauer, K., ´Die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen dem Rheinland und den
Niederlande´, Jahresbericht der Nederlandsche Kamer van Koophandel voor
Duitschland 1929-1930 (Frankfurt am Main 1930) 5-8;
-
Gemeente Amsterdam, A short account of the docks, harbour works and trading
establishments of the city of Amsterdam (Amsterdam 1914);
-
Angell, James, The Recovery of Germany (New Haven 1929);
-
Ark, B. van, J. de Haan and H.J. de Jong, ‘Characteristics of economic growth in the
Netherlands during the postwar period’, in N. Crafts and G. Toniolo (eds.), Economic
Growth in Europe since 1945 (Cambridge 1996) 290-327;
-
Ashton, Nigel J. and Duco Hellema, ‘Hanging the Kaiser: Anglo-Dutch Relations and
the Fate of Wilhelm II, 1918-20’, Diplomacy & Statecraft, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2000) 53-78;
-
Backx, J. Ph., De haven van Rotterdam; een onderzoek naar de oorzaken van haar
economische beteekenis in vergelijking met die van Hamburg en Antwerpen
(Rotterdam 1929 (PhD-dissertation Leiden s.a.));
-
Bailey, S.H., ‘Reciprocity and the Most-Favoured-Nation Clause’, Economica, No. 42
(Nov., 1933) 428-456;
-
Bakker, Gert P. den, Jan de Gijt, Who Came off Worst: Structural Change of Dutch
Value Added and Employment During the Interwar Period (Voorburg 1990);
-
Balderston, Theodore, ‘Statistical Sources on German Investment 1924-1929’, in
Hans Mommsen, Dietmar Petzina and Bernd Weisbrod (eds.), Industrielles System
und politische Entwicklung in der Weimarer Republik, (Düsseldorf 1977);
-
Balderston, ‘The Beginning of the Depression in Germany, 1927-30: Investment and
the Capital Market’, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol.36, No.3 (Aug.,
1983) 395-415;
-
Balderston, T., ‘War Finance and Inflation in Britain and Germany, 1914-1918’, The
Economic History Review, Vol. 42, No. 2 (May, 1989) 222-244;
291
-
Balderston, Theodore, The Origins and Course of the German Economic Crisis 19231932 (Berlin 1993);
-
Baldwin, David A., ‘Interdependence and Power: A Conceptual Analysis’.
International Organization, Vol. 34, No. 4 (Autumn 1980) 471-506;
-
Barbian, Jan-Pieter, ‘Die Rolle der Diplomaten bei der Verständigung zwischen
Deutschland und den Niederlanden in der Zeit der Weimarer Republik’, in W.
Mühlhausen, B. Altena, F. Boll, L. Geeraedts, F. Wielenga (eds.), Grenzgänger.
Persönlichkeiten des deutsch-niederländischen Verhältnisses. Horst Lademacher zum
65. Geburtstag (Münster 1998) 115-154;
-
Barbieri, Katherine, Economic Interdependence and Militarized Conflict, 1870-1990
(Binghamton 1995)
-
Barbieri, K., ‘Economic Interdependence: A Path to Peace or a Source of Interstate
Conflict?’ Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 33, No. 1 (Feb., 1996) 29-49;
-
Barbieri, K., and Richard Alan Peters II, ‘Measure for Mis-Measure: A Response to
Gartzke & Li’, Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 40, No. 6 (Nov., 2003) 713-719;
-
Barendregt, J., ‘Op weg naar nationale bekendheid, het handelsbankwezen tussen
1870 en 1914’, in Joh. de Vries, W. Vroom and T. de Graaf (eds.), Wereldwijd
bankieren. ABN Amro 1824-1999 (Amsterdam 1999) 127-184;
-
Barna, T., ‘The Interdependence of the British Economy’, Journal of the Royal
Statistical Society, Series A (General), Vol. 115, No. 1 (1952) 29-81;
-
Baster, A.S.J., ‘The International Acceptance Market’, The American Economic
Review, Vol. 27, No. 2 (Jun., 1937) 294-304;
-
Baudet, H., (ed.), Handelswereld en Wereldhandel, Honderd Jaren Internatio, Tien
Essays (Rotterdam 1963);
-
Beening, André, Onder de vleugels van de adelaar: de Duitse buitenlandse politiek
ten aanzien van Nederland in de periode 1890-1914 (s.l. [Amsterdam] 1994);
-
Beening, A., Tussen bewondering en verguizing. Duitsland in de Nederlandse
schoolboeken, 1750-2000 (Amsterdam 2001);
-
Benfey, Fritz, Die neuere Entwicklung des deutschen Auslandsbankwesens 1914-1925
(unter Mitberücksichtigung der ausländischen Bankstützpunkte in Deutschland)
(Berlin 1925);
-
Beukering, C.H.J. van, Der deutsch-niederländische Handel und die deutsche
Agrareinfuhr in den Jahren 1920-1940 (PhD dissertation Mainz 1953);
292
-
Beunders, H.J.G., and H.H. Selier, Argwaan en profijt. Nederland en Duitsland 19451981 (Amsterdam 1983);
-
Beyen, J.W., Het spel en de knikkers. Een kroniek van vijftig jaren (Rotterdam 1968);
-
Beyerhaus, E., Der Rhein von Strassburg bis zur holländischen Grenze in technischer
und wirthschaftlicher Beziehung: unter Benutzung amtlicher Quellen im Auftrage des
Herrn Ministers der öffentlichen Arbeiten (Coblenz 1902);
-
Bie, Ronald van der, ‘Een doorlopende groote roes’: de economische ontwikkeling
van Nederland, 1913-1921 (PhD dissertation Amsterdam 1995);
-
Bieleman, Jan, ‘Dutch Agriculture 1850-1925: Responding to changing markets’,
Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte (1) (1996) 11-52;
-
Bikker, Jacob A., ‘Interdependence between the Netherlands and Germany:
Forecasting with VAR Models’, De Economist 141, Nr.1 (1993) 43-69;
-
Blaich, F., Die Wirtschaftskrise 1925/26: von der Erwerbslosenfürsorge zur
Konjunkturpolitik (Kallmuinz 1977);
-
Blaisse, P.A., De Nederlandse handelspolitiek (Utrecht 1948);
-
Bläsing, J.F.E., Das goldene Delta und sein eisernes Hinterland. Von niederländischpreuβischen zu deutsch-niederlandischen Wirtschaftsbeziehungen (Leiden 1973);
-
Bläsing, J.F.E., ‘Die deutsch-niederländischen Wirtschaftsbeziehungen’, in Dietmar
Storch, ed., Die Niederlande und Deutschland. Nachbarn in Europa (Hannover 1992)
143-163;
-
Blink, H., ‘Nederland als tuinbouwland: historisch en economisch-geographisch
beschreven’, Tijdschrift voor Economische Geographie, Vol.7 (1916) 229-362;
-
Bloch, Kurt, ‘On German cartels’, The Journal of Business of the niversity of Chicago,
Vol. V, No.3 (July, 1932) 213-222;
-
Bloemen, E.S.A., ‘Tussen vrijhandel en protectie. Colijn en de internationale
economische congressen, 1927-1933’, in J. de Bruijn en H.J. Langeveld (eds.), Colijn.
Bouwstenen voor een Biografie (Kampen 1994);
-
Bochove, Cornelis A. van, A Note on Dutch National Accounting Data 1900-1984
(Voorburg 1985);
-
Bochove, C.A. van, and The A. Huitker, Main National Accounting Seres 1900-1986
(Voorburg 1987);
-
Bogardus, J.F., ‘Notes on recent production and movement of coal in Europe’,
Geographical Review, Vol.20, No.2 (Oct., 1930) 642-651;
293
-
Bonger, W.A., Vermogen en inkomen in Nederland gedurende den oorlogstijd (19131920). Een statistische studie (Amsterdam 1923);
-
Bonn, Moritz J., ‘International Economic Interdependence’, Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 175, The Shadow of War (Sep., 1934)
156-165;
-
Bonnell, Allan Thomas, German Control over International Economic Relations, 19301940 (Urbana, Illinois 1940);
-
Boogman, J.C., Nederland en de Duitse bond 1815-1851 (Groningen 1955);
-
Borchardt, K., ‘Wirtschaftliches Wachstum und Wechsellagen 1800–1914’, in H.
Aubin and W. Zorn (eds.), Handbuch der deutschen Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte
vol. 2 (Stuttgart 1976) 685–740;
-
Bos, Frits, ‘The Development of the Dutch national accounts as a tool for analysis
and policy’, Statistica Neerlandica, Vol. 60, No. 2 (2006) 225-258;
-
Bosch, K.D., De Nederlandse beleggingen in de Verenigde Staten (Amsterdam 1948);
-
Boterman, F.W., Duitsland als Nederlands probleem: de Nederlands-Duitse
betrekkingen tussen openheid en eigenheid. Rede uitgesproken bij de aanvaarding
van het ambt van bijzonder hoogleraar in de Nieuwste Duitse Geschiedenis, in het
bijzonder de Nederlands-Duitse betrekkingen, aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen op
dinsdag 27 oktober 1998 (Groningen 1998);
-
Boterman, F.W., and M. Vogel, Nederland en Duitsland in het Interbellum:
wisselwerking en contacten: van politiek tot literatuur (Hilversum 2003);
-
Brands, M., (ed.), In de schaduw van Duitsland. Een discussie (Baarn 1979);
-
Brandt, Karl, ‘The Crisis in German Agriculture’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Jul.,
1932) 632-646;
-
Braun, Hans-Joachim, The German economy in the twentieth century: the German
Reich and the Federal Republic (Londen 1990);
-
Brenninkmeyer, L., Die Amsterdamer Effektenbörse (Berlin 1920);
-
Brugmans, H., (ed.), Nederland in den oorlogstijd: de geschiedenis van Nederland en
van Nederlandsch-Indië tijdens den oorlog van 1914 tot 1919, voor zoover zij met
dien oorlog verband houdt (Amsterdam 1920);
-
Brugmans, I.J., Paardenkracht en mensenmacht (Den Haag 1960 (3rd printing 1976));
-
Bruijn, J. de, and H.J. Langeveld (eds.), Colijn: bouwstenen voor een biografie
(Kampen 1994);
294
-
Bruins, G. W. J., ‘Het vraagstuk der internationale credietverleening (voorstel-Ter
Meulen)’, Economisch-Statistische Berichten, Vol. 5, No. 249 (1920) 861;
-
Bruins, G. W. J., ‘Eene internationale vrijhandelsconferentie’, EconomischStatistische Berichten, Vol. 5, No. 249 (1920) 737;
-
Bruins, G.W.J., ‘The Netherlands Bank, 1926-7.’ Economic Journal, Vol.37, No. 148
(Dec., 1927) 672-676;
-
Brüning, H., Memoiren 1918-1934 (Stuttgart 1970);
-
Bünnemeijer, A., Die deutsch-holländischen Handelsbeziehungen von der
Jahrhundertwende bis 1924 (PhD dissertation Cologne 1925);
-
Bureau van Statistiek der Gemeente Amsterdam, Eenige cijfers over de haven van
Amsterdam in de periode 1929-1937 (Amsterdam 1938);
-
Burgdorffer, A.C., A. Voogd and Ch. A. Cocheret, Le port de Rotterdam: son
importance pour la navigation rhénane et ses relations avec la France (Rotterdam
1924);
-
Burger, Ary, ‘Dutch patterns of development. Economic growth and structural
change in the Netherlands, 1800-1910.’ Economic and Social History in the
Netherlands, Vol. 7 (1996) 161-180;
-
Burhop, C., and G.B. Wolff, ‘A Compromise Estimate of German Net National
Product, 1851-1913, and its Implications for Growth and Business Cycles’, The
Journal of Economic History, Vol. 65, No. 3 (Sep., 2005) 613-657;
-
Campbell, F.G., ‘The struggle for Upper Silesia, 1919-1922’, The Journal of Modern
History, Vol.42, No.3 (Sep., 1970) 361-385;
-
Carter, G.R., ‘The Rhenish- Westphalian Coal Syndicate’, The Economic Journal,
Vol.22, No.85 (Mar., 1912) 137-145;
-
Cassis, Youssef, Finance and Financiers in European History, 1880-1960 (Cambridge
1992);
-
Cassis, Youssef, London and Paris as International Financial Centres in the Twentieth
Century (Oxford 2005);
-
CBS, Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer. Inleiding behoorende bij de
Jaarstatistiek over 1917 (The Hague 1918);
-
Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek (CBS), Maandstatistiek van den in- en uitvoer en
van het entrepotverkeer der belangrijkste handelsartikelen [1918-Juli 1919] (The
Hague);
295
-
CBS, Maandstatistiek van den in-, uit- en doorvoer [Augustus 1919-1931] (The
Hague);
-
CBS, Jaarstatistiek van den In-, Uit- en doorvoer 1922-1925 (The Hague 1923-1926);
-
CBS, Statistiek van de in- en uitklaringen van zee- en rivierschepen over het jaar
[1918-1920] (The Hague 1919-1921);
-
CBS, Statistiek van het scheepvaartverkeer met het buitenland (in- en uitklaringen
van zee- en rivierschepen) [1925-1927] (The Hague [1926-1928]);
-
CBS, Statistiek van de scheepvaart op het buitenland [1928-1931] (The Hague [19291932]);
-
CBS, Statistiek van de zeescheepvaart over het jaar [1918-1930] (The Hague [19191931]);
-
CBS, Statistiek der scheepvaartbeweging op de rivieren en kanalen in Nederland in
[1918-1926] (The Hague [1919-1927]);
-
CBS, Statistiek der scheepvaartbeweging in Nederland [1927-1931] (The Hague
[1928-1932]);
-
CBS, Jaarcijfers voor Nederland 1924/1925 (The Hague 1926);
-
CBS, Mededeeling Afdeeling handelsstatistiek, No.1, 11 December 1933;
-
CBS, Het nationale inkomen van Nederland, 1921-1939 (Utrecht 1948);
-
CBS, Zeventig jaren statistiek in tijdreeksen, 1899-1969 (The Hague 1970);
-
CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen, 1921-1939 en 1969-1985. Een vergelijking
op basis van herziene gegevens voor het interbellum (The Hague 1987);
-
CBS, Tweehonderd jaar statistiek in tijdreeksen, 1800-1999 (Amsterdam 2001)
-
CBS, Zeventig jaren statistiek in tijdreeksen, 1899-1969 (The Hague 1970);
-
CBS, Macro-economische ontwikkelingen, 1921-1939 en 1969-1985. Een vergelijking
op basis van herziene gegevens voor het interbellum (The Hague 1987);
-
Centraal Plan Bureau (CPB), Agricultural relationships between Germany and the
Netherlands (The Hague 1995);
-
CPB, Challenging neighbours; rethinking German and Dutch economic institutions
(The Hague 1997);
-
Chalmers, Henry, ‘The Post-War Drift in European Commercial Policy’, The American
Economic Review, Vol.14, No.1 (March, 1924) 14-25;
-
Chalmers, H., ‘Current Trends in Foreign Commercial Policy’, Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 150, Economics of World Peace (Jul.,
1930) 126-145;
296
-
Chase, Kerry A., ‘Imperial protection and strategic trade policy in the interwar
period’, Review of International Political Economy, Vol.11, No.1 (Feb., 2004) 177203;
-
Chorley, G.P.H., ‘The Agricultural Revolution in Northern Europe, 1750-1880:
Nitrogen, Legumes, and Crop Productivity’, The Economic History Review, Vol. 34,
No. 1 (Feb., 1981) 71-93;
-
Clapp, Edwin J., The Port of Hamburg (New Haven 1912);
-
Clarke, R.W., ‘The Influence of Fuel on International Poltics’, Journal of the British
Institute of International Affairs, Vol.2, No.3 (May, 1923) 107-116;
-
Clavin, Patricia, The Great Depression in Europe, 1929-1939 (New York 2000);
-
Clavin, Patricia, ‘Defining Transnationalism’, Contemporary European History, Vol.
14, No. 4 (2005) 421-439;
-
Clavin, P., ‘Time, Manner, Place. Writing European History in Transnational and
International Contexts,’ European History Quarterly, 3 (2010) 624-640;
-
Cleef, Eugene van, ‘Hinterland and Umland’, Geographical Review, Vol. 31, No.2
(Apr., 1941) 308-311;
-
‘Continental Discount Markets. I. – Amsterdam’, The Economist (4 October 1930);
-
Cooper, Richard N., The Economics of Interdependence: Economic Policy in the
Atlantic Community (New York 1968);
-
Cooper, R.N., ‘Fettered to Gold? Economic Policy in the Interwar Period’, Journal of
Economic Literature, Vol. 30, No. 4 (Dec., 1992) 2120-2128;
-
Copeland, Dale C., ‘Economic Interdependence and War: A Theory of Trade
Expectations’, International Security, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Spring, 1996) 5-41;
-
Costigan, Edward P., ‘Economic alliances, commercial treaties, and tariff
adjustments’, The American Economic Review, Vol.8, No.1 (Mar., 1918) 281-296;
-
Criekinge, Hendrik van, De financiering der scheepvaartondernemingen. Het
scheepscredietwezen in België en in de omringende landen (Leuven 1933);
-
Crompton, Gerald, ‘'The tortoise and the economy': inland waterway navigation in
international economic history’, Journal of Transport History, 25 (2) (2004) 1-22.
-
Crone, G.R., ‘Inland waterways of Germany’, The Geographical Journal, Vol.93, No.4
(Apr., 1939) 333-339;
-
Crosby, Oscar T., ‘The Dawes Plan a Temporary Basis for Reparation Payments’,
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 120, American
Policy and International Security (Jul., 1925) 11-15;
297
-
De Nederlandsche Bank, Verslag door den president en door de commissarissen,
uitgebracht in de algemeene vergadering van aandeelhouders...[1918-1931]
(Amsterdam [1918-1931]);
-
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V., Verslag door den president en door de commissarissen
uitgebracht in de algemeene vergadering van stemgerechtigde aandeelhouders op
21 juni 1921 (Amsterdam 1921);
-
Das Basler Gutachten über die Deutsche Wirtschaftskrise (Frankfurt am Main 1931);
-
Davis, Joseph S., ‘Economic and Financial Progress in Germany’, The Review of
Economics and Statistics, Vol. 3, No. 6 (Jun., 1921) 141-165;
-
Davis, Joseph S., ‘Economic and Financial Progress in Europe’ In: The Review of
Economics and Statistics, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Apr., 1923) 79-113;
-
Davis, Joseph S., ‘Economic and Financial Progress in Europe, 1923-1924’, The
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 6, No. 3 (Jul., 1924) 205-242;
-
Davis, Joseph S., ‘Economic and Financial Progress in Europe, 1924-1925’, The
Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 7, No. 2 (Apr., 1925) 61-85;
-
Dawson, William H., ‘The New German Tariff’, The Economic Journal, Vol.12, No.45
(Mar. 1902) 15-23;
-
Departement van Financiën, Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer over het jaar
1900 (The Hague 1901);
-
Departement van Financiën, Statistiek van den In-, Uit- en Doorvoer over het jaar
1913 (The Hague 1914);
-
Deutsche Bundesbank, Deutsches Geld- und Bankwesen in Zahlen 1876-1975
(Frankfurt am Main 1976);
-
Devos, Greta and Driel, Hugo van, ‘De regulering van de overslag in de havens van
Antwerpen en Rotterdam van 1870 tot 1950’, NEHA-Jaarboek voor Economische,
Bedrijfs- en Techniekgeschiedenis (2000) 145-165;
-
Dickinson, Robert E., ‘The Economic Regions of Germany’, Geographical Review, Vol.
28, No. 4 (Oct., 1938) 609-626;
-
‘Die deutschen Banken, 1924 bis 1926’, Einzelschriften zur Statistik des Deutschen
Reichs, nr.3 (Berlin 1927);
-
‘Die Entwicklung des internationalen Geldmarktes und der Geldmärkte einzelner
Länder während des Jahres 1924’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik,
Vol.123 (1925) 492-563;
298
-
‘Die Entwicklung des internationalen Geld- und Kapitalmarktes einzelner Länder
während des I. Halbjahrs 1927’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik,
Vol.129 (1927) 581-641;
-
‘Die Entwicklung des internationalen Geld- und Kapitalmarktes einzelner Länder
während des I. Halbjahrs 1929’, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik,
Vol.131 (1929) 553-586;
-
Dietrich, Bruno F.A., ‘The Present Economic Condition of Germany’, Economic
Geography, Vol. 2, No. 1 (Jan., 1926) 49-58;
-
Domeratzky, Louis, ‘Cartels and the Business Crisis’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 10, No. 1
(Oct., 1931) 34-53;
-
Dorp, E.C. van, ‘Handel en nijverheid’, in H. Brugmans (ed.), Nederland in den
Oorlogstijd. De geschiedenis van Nederland en van Nederlandsch-Indië tijdens den
oorlog van 1914 tot 1919, voor zoover zij met dien oorlog verband houdt
(Amsterdam 1920) 191-250;
-
Dresdner Bank, Die wirtschaftlichen Kräfte der Welt (Berlin 1927);
-
Driel, Hugo van, ‘Innovation and Integration in Mineral Bulk Handling in the Port of
Rotterdam, 1886-1923’, Business History, Vol. 44, No. 3 (2002) 63-90;
-
Driel, Hugo van and Schot, Johan, ‘Radical Innovation as a Multilevel Process:
Introducing Grain Elevators in the Port of Rotterdam’, Technology and Culture, Vol.
46, No. 1 (Jan., 2005) 51-76;
-
Dunk, H.W. von der, Twee buren, twee culturen: opstellen over Nederland en
Duitsland (Amsterdam 1994);
-
Eastman, Mark, ‘International Aspects of the European Coal Crisis in 1926’, Journal
of Political Economy, Vol.36, No.2 (Apr., 1928) 229-239;
-
Edwards, G.W., International Trade Finance (New York 1924);
-
Eichengreen, Barry J., Elusive stability: essays in the history of international finance,
1919-1939 (Cambridge 1990);
-
Eichengreen, B.J., ‘Historical Research on International Lending and Debt’, The
Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Spring, 1991) 149-169;
-
Eichengreen, B.J., Golden Fetters: the gold standard and the great depression, 19191939 (New York 1992);
-
Eichengreen, B.J., ‘The Origins and Nature of the Great Slump Revisited’, The
Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 45, No. 2 (May, 1992) 213-239;
299
-
Eichengreen, B.J., en Douglas A. Irwin, Trade Blocs, Currency Blocs and the
Disintegration of World Trade in the 1930’s (Londen 1993);
-
Eichengreen, B.J. en Kris Mitchener, The Great Depression as a Credit Boom Gone
Wrong (Basel 2003);
-
Eichengreen, B.J., ‘Viewpoint: Understanding the Great Depression’, The Canadian
Journal of Economics / Revue canadienne d’Economique, Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 2004)
1-27;
-
Eisen, Edna E., ‘The Structure of Rhine Traffic’, Economic Geography, Vol. 10, No. 3
(Jul., 1934) 254-267;
-
Elman, Colin, Miram Fendius Elman, Paul W. Schroeder, ‘Histroy vs. Neo-realism: A
Secong Look’, International Security, Vol. 20, No.1 (Summer, 1995) 182-195;
-
Ernst, Dieter, and Terutomo Ozawa, ‘National Sovereign Economy, Global Market
Economy, and Transnational Corporate Economy’, Journal of Economic Issues, Vol.
36, No. 2 (Jun., 2002) 547-555;
-
Eysinga, W.J.M. van, La Commission Centrale pour la Navigation du Rhin (Leyden
1935);
-
Fear, Jeffrey Robert, Thyssen & Co., Mülheim (Ruhr), 1871-1934: The
Institutionalization of the Corporation (Stanford U. 1993);
-
Febvre, Lucien, (ed.), Le Rhin. Histoire, mythes et réalités (Paris 1997 2nd ed.);
-
Federico, Giovanni, ‘Not Guilty? Agriculture in the 1920s and the Great Depression’,
The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 65, No. 4 (Dec., 2005) 949-976;
-
Feinstein, C.H., P. Temin, G. Toniolo, The World Economy between the World Wars
(Oxford 2008);
-
Feldman, Gerald D., ‘Big Business and the Kapp Putsch’, Central European History,
Vol. 4, No. 2 (Jun., 1971) 99-130;
-
Feldman, G.D. (ed.), Die deutsche Inflation: eine Zwischenbilanz (Berlin 1982);
-
Feldman, G.D., Vom Weltkrieg zur Weltwirtschaftskrise: Studien zur deutschen
Wirtschafts- und Sozialgeschichte 1914-1932 (Göttingen 1984);
-
Feldman, G.D., Elisabeth Mueller-Luckner (eds.), Die Nachwirkungen der inflation auf
die deutsche Geschichte 1924-1933 (Munich 1985);
-
Feldman, G.D., and C.-L Holtfrerich, G.A. Ritter, P.-C. Witt (eds.), Konsequenzen der
Inflation (Berlin 1989);
-
Feldman, G.D., The Great Disorder. Politics, Economics, and Society in the German
Inflation, 1914-1924 (New York and Oxford 1993);
300
-
Ferguson, Niall, Paper and iron: Hamburg business and German politics in the era of
inflation, 1897-1927 (Cambridge 1995);
-
Ferguson, N., ‘Constraints and Room for Manoeuvre in the German Inflation of the
Early 1920s’, The Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 49, No. 4 (Nov., 1996)
635-666;
-
Finch, George A., ‘The Dawes report on German reparation payments’, The
American Journal of International Law, Vol.18, No.3 (Jul., 1924) 419-435;
-
Finch, George A., ‘The London Conference on the Application of the Dawes Plan’,
The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 18, No. 4 (Oct., 1924) 707-719;
-
Fischer, Conan, ‘Scoundrels without a Fatherland? Heavy Industry and
Transnationalism in Post-First World War Germany’, Contemporary European
History, Vol. 14, no. 4 (2005) 441-464;
-
Fischer, Wolfram, Deutsche Wirtschaftspolitik 1918-1945 (Opladen 1968);
-
Fischer, W., ‘Die Weimarer Republik unter den weltwirtschaftlichen Bedingungen
der Zwischenkriegszeit’, in H. Mommsen, D. Petzina, B. Weisbrod (eds.), Industrielles
System und politische Entwicklung in der Weimarer Republik (Düsseldorf 1977) 2650;
-
Fischer, W., and Andreas Kunz, Grundlagen der Historische Statistik vond
Deutschland (Opladen 1991);
-
Fischer, W., ‘Dimensionen und Struktur der Weltwirtschaft’, in H.-J. Gerhard (ed.)
Struktur und Dimension vol.2 (Stuttgart 1997);
-
Flandreau, Marc, Frédéric Zumer, The Making of Global Finance, 1880-1913 (s.l.
[Paris] 2004);
-
Folmer, C., Agricultural Relationships between Germany and the Netherlands, CPB
Research Memorandum No. 122 (Den Haag 1995);
-
Frankfurther, A., In klinkende munt. Herinneringen van een bankier (Amsterdam
1961);
-
Fremdling, Rainer R., ‘Railroads and German Economic Growth: A Leading Sector
Analysis with a Comparison to the United States and Great Britain’, The Journal of
Economic Histroy, Vol.37, No.3 (Sept., 1977) 583-604;
-
Fremdling, R.R., ‘German National Accounts for the 19th and early 20th century. A
critical assessment’, Vierteljahrschrift für Sozial- und Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Vol.75
(1988) 339-357;
301
-
Fremdling, R.R., ‘Per spoor de grens over: Niederländisch-deutsche
Eisenbahnbeziehungen, 1853-1938’, in J.C.G.M. Jansen (ed.), Economische
betrekkingen in grensregio’s in een industrieel tijdperk, 1750-1965 (Leeuwarden
1996);
-
Fremdling, R.R., ‘Die niederländische Eisenbahnen und ihr deutsches Hinterland
1853-1938,’ in H.-J. Gerhard (ed.), Struktur und Dimension (Stuttgart 1997);
-
Fremdling, R.R., Historical precedents of Global Markets, Research Memorandum
GD-43, Groningen Growth and Development Centre (October 1999);
-
Fremdling, R.R., German Industrial Employment 1925, 1933, 1936 and 1939: A New
Benchmark for 1936 and a Note on Hoffmann's Tales, Research Memorandum GD94b (2007), Groningen Growth and Development Centre, University of Groningen;
-
Frey, Marc, Der Erste Weltkrieg und die Niederlande: ein neutrals Land im politischen
und wirtschaftlichen Kalkül der Kriegsgegner (Berlin 1998);
-
Gales, B., In Foreign Parts: Free-Standing Companies in the Netherlands around the
First World War, Research Memorandum 577 (GD-16) (Groningen 1994);
-
Gall, Lothar, (ed.), Krupp im 20. Jahrhundert: Die Geschichte des Unternehmens vom
Ersten Weltkrieg bis zur Gründung der Stiftung (Berlin 2002);
-
Gartzke, Erik, ‘Kant We All Just get Along? Opportunity, Willingness, and the Origins
of the Democratic Peace.’ American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 42, No. 1. (Jan.,
1998) 1-27;
-
Gartzke, Erik, and Quan Li, ‘Investing in the Peace: Economic Interdependence and
International Conflict’. International Organization, 55, 2, Spring 2001, 391-438;
-
Gartzke, Erik, and Quan Li, ‘Measure for Measure: Concept Operationalization and
the Trade Interdependence: Conflict Debate’. Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 40, No.
5, (Sept. 2003) 553-571;
-
Gates, Robert A., ‘German Socialism and the Crisis of 1929-33’, Central European
History, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Dec., 1974) 332-359;
-
Gehr, Martin, Das Verhältnis zwischen Banken und Industrie in Deutschland seit der
Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis zur Bankenkrise von 1931 unter besonderer
Berucksichtigung des industriellen Grosskredits (Tübingen 1959);
-
Gessner, Dieter, Agrarverbände in der Weimarer Republik. Wirtschaftliche und
soziale Voraussetzungen agrarkonservativer Politik vor 1933 (Düsseldorf 1976);
302
-
Gilpin, Robert, ‘The Politics of Transnational Economic Relations’, International
Organization, Vol. 25, No. 3, Transnational Relations and World Politics (Summer,
1971) 398-419;
-
Goedewaagen, K.G., Onze geldmarkt (Amsterdam 1915);
-
Goey, Ferry de, and Paul van de Laar, 'Scheepsfinanciering: een comparatief
perspectief (1870‐1970)', Tijdschrift voor zeegeschiedenis, Vol. 14 (1995), issue ‘Geld
en water. Banken, verzekeringen en scheepvaart in de negentiende en twintigste
eeuw’ (1995) 23‐61;
-
Goey, F.M.M. de, (ed.), Comparative port history of Rotterdam and Antwerp (18802000): cargo and costs competition (Amsterdam 2004);
-
Graaff, Bob de, ‘Van Limburg Stirum. Diplomaat in bange dagen in Berlijn (19271936) Een onderbelichte figuur’, in, Jaarboek Buitenlandse Zaken, IV, (1998) 11-39;
-
Graaff, B. de, ‘Buitenlands en toch provinciaals: de historiografie van de
Nederlandse buitenlandse politiek 1870-1998’. In: Theoretische Geschiedenis 1999
26(3) 310-333;
-
Graham, Frank D., ‘Germany's Capacity to Pay and the Reparation Plan’, The
American Economic Review, Vol. 15, No. 2. (Jun., 1925) 209-227;
-
Gras, A., ‘Onze Handel met Duitsland’, Maandstatistiek van de internationale
handel, jrg.4, nr. 8 (1999) 9;
-
Griffiths, Richard T., Industrial retardation in the Netherlands, 1830-1850 (The Hague
1979);
-
Griffiths, R.T., The Netherlands and the Gold Standard. A Study in Policy Formation
and Policy (Amsterdam 1988);
-
Griffiths, R., ‘Backward, late or different?’, in J.L. van Zanden (ed.), The economic
development of the Netherlands since 1870 (Cheltenham 1996);
-
Groot, A.M., De spoorwegtekorten; een bedrijfseconomische analyse van het
spoorwegbedrijf in Nederland (Rotterdam 1939);
-
Groote, Peter, Kapitaalvorming in infrastructuur in Nederland (Groningen 1995);
-
Groote, Peter, Jan Jacobs and Jan Egbert Sturm, Output Responses to Infrastructure
Investment in the Netherlands, 1850-1913, Research Memorandum GD-24
(Groningen 2005);
-
Grotewold, Andreas, ‘Some Aspects of the Geography of International Trade’,
Economic Geography, Vol. 37, No. 4 (Oct., 1961) 309-319;
-
Haelling, G., Le Rhin. Politique, économique, commercial (Paris 1921);
303
-
‘Handelskroniek’, De Economist, Vol.68, No.1 (December 1919) 631-634;
-
Hanrath, J.H., Statistieken van het goederenvervoer (Groningen 1931 [PhdDissertation Rotterdam]);
-
Hardach, G.H., Weltmarktorientierung und relative Stagnation: Währungspolitik in
Deutschland 1924-1931 (Berlijn 1976);
-
Harms, B., Gegenwartsaufgaben der deutschen Handelspolitik (Jena 1925);
-
Harms, B., and B. Kuske, O. Most, Die deutsche Rheinschiffahrt: Gutachten der RheinKommission über die Lage der Rheinschiffahrt in der in ihr beschäftigten
Arbeitsnehmer (Berlin 1930);
-
Harris, Chauncy D., ‘The Ruhr’, The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 60, No. 1 (Jan., 1945) 2529;
-
Harris, Chauncy D., ‘The Ruhr Coal-Mining District’, Geographical Review, Vol. 36,
No. 2 (Apr., 1946) 194-221;
-
Marjolein C. 't Hart, Joost Jonker, Jan L. van Zanden (eds.), A financial history of the
Netherlands (Cambridge 1997);
-
Harthoorn, P.C., Hoofdlijnen uit de ontwikkeling van het moderne bankwezen in
Nederland vóór de concentratie (Rotterdam 1928);
-
Hartmann, W.J., Amsterdam als financieel centrum: een beschrijvende critische en
vergelijkende studie (PhD dissertation, Gand University, 1937);
-
Hartshorne, Richard, ‘The Upper Silesian Industrial District’, Geographical Review,
Vol. 24, No. 3 (Jul., 1934) 423-438;
-
Haushofer, Heinz, Die deutsche Landwirtschaft im technischen Zeitalter (Stuttgart
1963);
-
Hayes, Peter, ‘Industrial Factionalism in Modern German History’, Central European
History, Vol. 24, No. 2 (1991) 122-131;
-
Hegre, Håvard, ‘Size Asymmetry, Trade, and Militarized Conflict’, The Journal of
Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 3 (Jun., 2004) 403-429;
-
Heichen, A., Deutschlands Zahlungsbilanz 1925; zugleich Chronik der
Auslandsbeziehungen der deutschen Volkswirtschaft (Leipzig 1926);
-
Heldring, E., ‘De Nederlandsch-Duitsche verdragen’, De Nederlandsche Werkgever.
Wekelijks orgaan van het verbond van Nederlandsche Werkgevers (8 July 1926);
-
Heldring, E., Herinneringen en dagboek van Ernst Heldring (1871-1954) Uitgegeven
door Dr. Joh. De Vries (Groningen 1970);
304
-
Hellauer, E., Internationale Finanzplätze. Ihr Wesen und ihre Entstehung unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung Amsterdams (Berlin 1936);
-
Hertz-Eichenrode, D., Wirtschaftskrise und Arbeitsbeschaffung: Konjunkturpolitik
1925/26 und die Grundlagen der Krisenpolitik Brünings (Frankfurt 1982);
-
Hellema, Duco A., Nederland en de wereld. Buitenlandse politiek van Nederland
(Houten 4th ed. 2010);
-
Hellema, D.A., and Bert Zeeman, Bert van der Zwan (eds.), De Nederlandse ministers
van Buitenlandse Zaken in de twintigste eeuw. Vijfde jaarboek van de geschiedenis
van de Nederlandse buitenlandse politiek in de twintigste eeuw (Den Haag 1999);
-
Hines, Walker D., Rapport relatif `a la Navigation sur le Rhin, présenté a la
Commission Consultative et Technique des Communications et du Transit de la
Société des Nations (Geneva 1925);
-
Hirschfeld, Hans Max, Het ontstaan van het moderne bankwezen in Nederland (PhD
dissertation Rotterdam 1922);
-
Hirschfeld, H.M., ‘Amsterdam comme centre financier international.’ Revue
Économique Internationale (July 1924) 7-24;
-
Hirschfeld, H.M., Nieuwe stroomingen in het Nederlandsche bankwezen (Roermond
1925);
-
Hirschfeld, H.M., Actieve economische politiek in Nederland in de jaren 1929-1934
(Amsterdam 1946);
-
Hirschman, Albert O., National power and the structure of foreign trade (Berkeley
1969);
-
Hoffbauer, Wirtschaftliche Beziehungen Hollands mit Deutschland, insbesondere mit
dem rhein-westfalischen Industriegebiet (Duisburg 1930);
-
Hoffman, Ross J.S., Great Britain and the German Trade Rivalry, 1875-1914
(Philadelphia 1933);
-
Hoffmann, W.G., with F. Grumbach and H. Hesse, Das Wachstum des deutschen
Wirtschaft seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Berlin 1965);
-
Holtfrerich, C.-L., Die deutsche Inflation 1914-1923. Ursachen und Folgen in
internationaler Perspektive (Berlin 1980);
-
Hoßbach , Arthur, Die Verkehrsbedeutung des Großschiffahrtsweges Rhein, Main,
Donau für die großdeutsche Wirtschaft (Berlin 1930);
-
Houwink, André, Acceptcrediet. Economische en bankpolitieke beschouwingen over
den in het bankaccept belichaamden credietvorm (Amsterdam 1929);
305
-
Houwink ten Cate, J.Th.M., ‘De mannen van de daad’ en Duitsland, 1919-1939. Het
Hollandse zakenleven en de vooroorlogse buitenlandse politiek (The Hague 1995);
-
Houwink ten Cate, J.Th.M., ed., Bruins’ Berlijnse besprekingen Een selectie uit het
archief van prof. mr. dr. G.W.J. Bruins, in het bijzonder de jaren 1924-1930 (The
Hague 1989);
-
Houwink ten Cate, J.Th.M., ‘Amsterdam als Finanzplatz Deutschlands’, in G. D.
Feldman (ed.), Konsequenzen der Inflation (Berlin 1989) 149-179;
-
Huntingdon, Samuel P., ‘Transnational Organizations in World Politics.’ World
Politics, Vol. 25, No. 3 (Apr. 1973);
-
Hurst, W., ‘Holland, Switzerland, and Belgium and the English Gold Crisis of 1931’,
The Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 40, No. 5 (Oct., 1932) 638-660;
-
Industrie- und Handelskammer Krefeld, Der wirtschaftliche Aufbau der Niederlande
(Krefeld 1927);
-
Industrie- und Handelskammer Krefeld, Wirtschaftliche und verkehrliche
Verflechtungen am linken Niederrhein (Krefeld 1934);
-
Jacks, David S., Christopher M. Meissner, Dennis Novy, ‘Trade Costs, 1870-2000’, The
American Economic Review, Vol. 98, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the One
Hundred Twentieth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May,
2008) 529-534;
-
Jager, J.L. de, ‘De harde leerschool, 1914-1950.’ In: Joh. de Vries, W. Vroom and T.
de Graaf (eds.), Wereldwijd bankieren. ABN Amro 1824-1999 (Amsterdam 1999)
241-298;
-
James, Harold, ‘The Causes of the German Banking Crisis of 1931’, The Economic
History Review, New Series Vol. 37, No. 1 (Feb., 1984) 68-87;
-
James, Harold, ‘Financial Flows across Frontiers during the Interwar Depression’, The
Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 45, No. 3, European Special Issue (Aug.,
1992) 594-613;
-
Jolmes, L., Geschichte der Unternehmungen in der deutschen Rheinschiffahrt
(Cologne 1960);
-
Jones, Lewis W., ‘The Hinterland Reconsidered’, American Sociological Review, Vol.
20, No. 1 (Feb., 1955) 40-44;
-
Jong, A.M. de, ‘Uit de geschiedenis van ’s rijks vlottende schuld. De vlottende schuld
van 1914 tot 1940 - I’. In: De Economist, Vol.105 (1957) pp.1-53;
306
-
Jong, A.M. de, ‘Uit de geschiedenis van ’s rijks vlottende schuld. De vlottende schuld
van 1914 tot 1940 - II’. In: De Economist, Vol.105 (1957) pp.97-147;
-
Jong, Herman J. de, Prices, Real Value Added and Productivity in Dutch
Manufacturing, 1921-1960, Research Memorandum 549 (GD-4) (Groningen 1993);
-
Jong, H.J. de, Ronald Albers, Industrial Output and Labour Productivity in the
Netherlands, 1913-1929: Some Neglected Issues, Research Memorandum 574 (GD13) (Groningen 1994);
-
Jong, H.J. de, Bart van Ark, Accounting for Economic Growth in the Netherland since
1913, Research Memorandum GD-26 (Groningen 1996);
-
Jong, H.J. de, De Nederlandse industrie 1913-1965. Een vergelijkende analyse op
basis van de productiestatistieken (Amsterdam 1999);
-
Jong, H.J. de, ‘Dutch manufacturing performance in comparative perspective 19131965’, Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte (2001) 35-52;
-
Jong, H.J. de, J.P. Smits, ‘Changing Patterns of Competitiveness in Dutch
Manufacturing during the Twentieth Century: Factor or Technology Driven?’, in
Margrit Müller, Timo Myllyntaus (eds.), Pathbreakers. Small European Countries
Responding to Globalisation and Deglobalisation (Bern 2008) 89-112;
-
Jonge, J.A. de, De industrialisatie in Nederland tussen 1850 en 1914 (Amsterdam,
1968);
-
Jongh, G.J. de, Le port de Rotterdam (Rotterdam 1894);
-
Jongh, B.H. de, Beschouwingen over eenige effecten en credietvormen in hun
beteekenis voor de financiering der onderneming (Den Haag 1924);
-
Jongman, C.D., De Nederlandse geldmarkt (Leiden 1960);
-
Jonker, J.P.B., ‘Koopman op een dwaalspoor. De Seehafenausnahmetarife in de
betrekkingen tussen Nederland en Duitsland aan het begin van de jaren twintig.’
Jaarboek van het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken 1988/1989 (The Hague 1989)
181–201;
-
Jonker, J.P.B., ‘ Sinecures or sinews of power? Interlocking directorships and bankindustry relations in the Netherlands, 1910-1940’, Economic and Social History in the
Netherlands, Volume III (Amsterdam 1991) 119-131;
-
Jonker, J.P.B., ‘Spoilt for Choice? Banking Concentration and the Structure of the
Dutch Capital Market, 1900-1940’, in Y. Cassis, G.D. Feldman, U. Olsson (eds.), The
Evolution of Financial Institutions and Markets in Twentieth-century Europe
(Aldershot 1995);
307
-
Kaiserliches Statistisches Amt/Statistisches Reichsamt, Statistisches Jahrbuch für das
deutsche Reich (Berlin 1880-1942);
-
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam, Verslag over den toestand
van handel, scheepvaart en nijverheid te Amsterdam [1918-1922] (Amsterdam
[1919-1923]);
-
Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Amsterdam, Verslag van de
werkzaamheden der Kamer en van den toestand van handel, nijverheid en verkeer
[1923-1931] (Amsterdam [1924-1932]);
-
Kampp, Aage H., ‘Cultivation and Export of Netherlands Fruit’, Economic Geography,
Vol. 13, No. 3 (Jul., 1937) 315-324;
-
Kant, Immanuel, Zum ewigen Frieden. Ein philosophischer Entwurf. Herausgegeben
von Rudolf Malter (Stuttgart 1984);
-
Katzenstein, Peter J., ‘International Interdependence: Some Long-Term Trends and
Recent Changes’, International Organization, Vol. 29, No. 4 (Autumn, 1975) 10211034;
-
Katzenstein, P.J., ‘International Relations and Domestic Structures: Foreign
Economic Policies of Advanced Industrial States’, International Organization, Vol. 30,
No. 1 (Winter, 1976) 1-45;
-
Kautz, Erich A., Der Hafen von Vlissingen : seine Stellung und Entwicklungsaussichten
im internationalen Verkehr (Jena 1933);
-
Keesing, F.A.G., De conjuncturele ontwikkeling van Nederland en de evolutie van de
economische overheidspolitiek 1918-1938 (Utrecht 1947);
-
Keiser, G., and B. Benning, Kapitalbildung und Investitionen in der deutschen
Volkswirtschaft 1924 bis 1928 (Institut für Konjunkturforschung; Vierteljahrshefte
zur Konjunkturforschung, Sonderheft 22) (Berlin 1931);
-
Keohane, Robert O., Joseph S. Nye. Power and Interdependence: World Politics in
Transition (New York 1989);
-
Keohane, R.O., J.S. Nye Jr., ‘Power and Interdependence Revisited.’ International
Organization, Vol. 41, No. 4, (Autumn, 1987) 725-753;
-
Keohane, R.O., ‘Problematic Lucidity: Stephen Krasner's "State Power and the
Structure of International Trade"’, World Politics, Vol. 50, No. 1, Fiftieth Anniversary
Special Issue (Oct., 1997) 150- 170;
-
Keynes, John M., The Economic Consequences of the Peace (New York 1920);
308
-
Kiliani, Richard, Die Großbanken-Entwicklung in Holland und die Mitteleuropäische
Wirtschaft (Leipzig 1923);
-
Kindleberger, Charles P., The World in Depression: 1929-1939 (Berkeley 1973);
-
Klemann, Hein A.M., Tussen Reich en Empire. De economische betrekkingen van
Nederland met zijn belangrijkste handelspartners: Duitsland, Groot-Brittannië en
België en de Nederlandse handelspolitiek, 1929-1926 (Phd Dissertation Amsterdam
1990);
-
Klemann, H.A.M., ‘Dutch International Economic Relations during the Depression of
the 1930’s’, Economic and Social History in the Netherlands 1993 5: 149-178;
-
Klemann, H.A.M., ‘Gedanken zur europäischen Integration in den Niederlanden
während des Interbellums’, in Jac Bosmans (ed.), Europagedanke, Europabewegung
und Europapolitik in den Niederlanden und Deutschland seit dem Ersten Weltkrieg,
Niederlande-Studien Band 10 (Münster 1996) 79-100;
-
H.A.M. Klemann, ‘The International Economic Relations of Small Countries in the
1930s. Belgium and the Netherlands’, in Timo Myllyntaus (ed.), Economic crises and
reconstructuring in history. Experiences of small countries (St. Katharinen 1998)
-
Klemann, H.A.M., ‘The ‘Tommies’ or the ‘Jerries’: Dutch Trade Problems in the InterWar Period’, in Nigel J. Ashton and Duco Hellema (eds.), Unspoken Allies: AngloDutch relations since 1780 (Amsterdam 2001) 101-120;
-
Klemann, H.A.M., Waarom bestaat Nederland eigenlijk nog? (Inaugural lecture
Erasmus University Rotterdam 2006);
-
Klemann, H.A.M., ‘Ontwikkeling door isolement, De Nederlandse economie 19141918’, in Martin Kraaijestein and Paul Schulten (eds.), Wankel evenwicht: neutraal
Nederland en de Eerste Wereldoorlog (Soesterberg 2007);
-
Klemann, H.A.M., ‘Political Development and International Trade: The Netherlands
1929-1941’, in Margrit Müller, Timo Myllyntaus, eds., Pathbreakers. Small European
Countries Responding to Globalisation and Deglobalisation (Bern 2008) 297-322;
-
Klemann, H.A.M., Friso Wielenga, ‘Die Niederland und Deutschland, oder
verschwindet die nationale Ökonomie? Eine Enleitung’, in Hein A.M. Klemann, Friso
Wielenga (eds.), Deutschland und die Niederlande. Wirtschaftsbeziehungen im 19.
und 20. Jahrhundert (Münster 2009) 7-17;
-
Klemann, H.A.M., ’Wirtschaftliche Verflechtung im Schatten zweier Kriege 19141940’, in Hein A.M. Klemann, Friso Wielenga (eds.), Deutschland und die
309
Niederlande. Wirtschaftsbeziehungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Münster 2009) 1944;
-
Klemann, H.A.M., and Joep Schenk, ‘Competition in the Rhine Delta. Waterways,
railways and ports, 1870-1913’, Economic History Review (forthcoming);
-
Klemann, H.A.M., German-Dutch monetary relations (forthcoming);
-
Kleerekoper, S., De Nederlandsche zeescheepvaartstatistiek (Amsterdam 1928);
-
Knibbe, Merijn, Agriculture in the Netherlands, 1851-1950. Production and
institutional change (PhD dissertation Amsterdam 1993);
-
Kobrak, Christopher, ‘Foreign-Currency Transactions and the Recovery of German
Industry in the Aftermath of the First World War: The Case of Schering AG’,
Accounting, Business and Financial History, Vol. 12, No.1 (2002) 25-42;
-
Köllmann, Wolfgang, H. Korte, D. Petzina and W. Weber (eds.), Das Ruhrgebiet im
Industriezeitalter: Geschichte und Entwicklung (Düsseldorf 1990);
-
Korthals Altes, W.L., ‘De ontwikkeling van het transferprobleem en de Duitse
herstelbetalingen na de Eerste Wereldoorlog’, in N.E.H.A., Economisch en SociaalHistorisch Jaarboek, Deel 52 (Amsterdam 1989) 288-303;
-
Kranenburg, B.W., Hoofdtrekken der overheidsbeoeiing met het internationale
betalingsverkeer in Nederland sinds 31 Juli 1914 (Assen 1937 (Phd Dissertation
Leiden));
-
Krasner, Stephen D., ‘State Power and the Structure of International Trade’, World
Politics, Vol. 28, No. 3 (Apr., 1976) 317-347;
-
Kreutzmüller, C., Händler und Handlungsgehilfen. Der Finanzplatz Amsterdam und
die deutschen Großbanken, 1918-1945 (Stuttgart 2005);
-
Kroll, John A., ‘The Complexity of Interdependence’, International Studies Quarterly,
Vol. 37, No. 3 (Sep., 1993) 321-347;
-
Krüger, P., Die Außenpolitik der Republik von Weimar (Darmstadt 1985);
-
Krugman, Paul, Geography and trade (Leuven 1991);
-
Krugman, P., ‘Increasing Returns and Economic Geography.’ Journal of Political
Economy, 99 (1991) 483-499;
-
Krugman, P., ‘History and Industry Location: The Case of the Manufacturing Belt.’
American Economic Review, 81 (1991);
-
Krugman, P., Richard N. Cooper, T. N. Srinivasan, ‘Growing World Trade: Causes and
Consequences’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Vol. 1995, No. 1, 25th
Anniversary Issue (1995), 327-377;
310
-
Krugman, P., Development, Geography, and Economic Theory (Cambridge, Ma.
1996);
-
Kruizinga, Samuel, Economische Politiek. De Nederlandsche Overzee
Trustmaatschappij (1914-1919) en de Eerste Wereldoorlog (PhD Dissertation
Amsterdam 2011);
-
Kuczynski, Robert, Deutsche Anleihen im Ausland 1924 bis 1927. Deutsche ergänzte
Ausgabe von American loans to Germany (Berlin-Schlachtensee 1928);
-
Kuczynski, R., ‘Deutsche Auslandsanleihen seit 1924’, Schriften des Vereins für
Sozialpolitik, 174 (1928) 18;
-
Kunz, A., Statistik der Binnenschiffahrt in Deutschland (St. Katharinen 1999);
-
Kuznets, Simon S., Modern Economic Growth. Rate, Structure, Spread (New Haven
1966);
-
Laar, Paul T. van de, ‘Port Traffic in Rotterdam: the competitive edge of a Rhine-port
(1880-1914)’, in R. Loyen, E. Buyst, G. Devos (eds.), Struggling for leadership:
Antwerp-Rotterdam. Port Competition Between 1870-2000 (New York 2002) 63-86;
-
Lademacher, Horst, ‘Die wirtschaftlichen Beziehungen zwischen Deutschland und
den Niederlanden in den dreißiger und vierziger Jahren des 20. Jahrhunderts’, in
Jürgen C. Heß and Hanna Schissler (eds.), Nachbarn zwischen Nähe und Distanz.
Deutschland und die Niederlande Frankfurt 1988) 52-66;
-
Lademacher, H., Zwei ungleiche Nachbarn, Wege und Wandlungen der deutschniederländischen Beziehungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt 1990);
-
Lademacher, H., ‘Deutschland und die Niederlande. Über Aussenpolitik und
Fremdbild im Wandel einer Beziehung von 1648-1939’, in Dietmar Storch (ed.), Die
Niederlande und Deutschland. Nachbarn in Europa (Hannover 1992) 43-64;
-
Lak, Martijn, ‘Because We Need Them…’ German-Dutch relations after the
occupation: economic inevitability and political acceptance, 1945-1957 (PhD
dissertation Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2011, unpublished);
-
Länderrat des Amerikanischen Besatzungsgebiets (ed.), Statistisches Handbuch von
Deutschland 1928-1944 (München 1949);
-
Laspeyres, Renate, Rotterdam und das Ruhrgebiet (Marburg 1969);
-
Layne, Christopher, ‘Kant or Cant: The Myth of the Democratic Peace’, International
Security, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Autumn, 1994) 5-49;
-
Lazer, David, ‘The Free Trade Epidemic of the 1860s and Other Outbreaks of
Economic Discrimination’, World Politics, Vol. 51, No. 4 (Jul., 1999) 447-483;
311
-
Levainville, Jacques, ‘The French Iron Industry after the War’, Geographical Review,
Vol. 13, No. 1 (Jan., 1923) 86-98;
-
Lier, H.J.D. van, Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 1803-1928
(Rotterdam 1928);
-
Lindblad, J.Th., and J.L. van Zanden, ‘De buitenlandse handel van Nederland, 18721913’, Economisch- en sociaal-historisch jaarboek 52 (1989) 231-269;
-
Linden, Alfred, Süddeutschland und die Staffeltarife der Deutschen
Reichsbahngesellschaft (Mannheim 1926);
-
Loos, R., Deutschland zwischen ‘Schwärmertum’ und ‘Realpolitik’. Die Sicht der
niederländischen Kulturzeitschrift De Gids auf die politische Kultur des Nachbarn
Preußen-Deutschland 1837-1914 (Münster 2007);
-
Loyen, Reginald, ‘Functional shifts in the port of Antwerp. A throughput model.’
International journal of maritime history, XIII-2 (2001) 73-93;
-
Loyen, R., and Hugo van Driel, 'Methodology and sources of cargo flow analysis', in
Ferry de Goey (ed.), Comparative Port History of Rotterdam and Antwerp (1880‐
2000). Competition, Cargo and Costs (Amsterdam, 2004) 51‐74;
-
Loyen, R. and Paul van de Laar, ‘Cargo-handling technology and competition during
the interwar years’, in F. de Goey (ed.), Comparative Port History of Rotterdam and
Antwerp (1880-2000). Competition, Cargo and Costs (Amsterdam 2004) 77-98;
-
Loyen, R., Haven in de branding. De economische ontwikkeling van de Antwerpse
haven vanaf 1900 (PhD dissertation university Leuven 2008);
-
Lülsdorfs, J., Die Bedeutung Rotterdams für die rheinische Wirtschaft, insbesondere
für die deutsche Rheinschiffahrt (Köln 1940)
-
Madden, J. T., and M. Nadler, The International Money Markets (London 1935);
-
Maddison, Angus, Ontwikkelingsfasen van het kapitalisme (Utrecht 1982);
-
Maddison, A., The World Economy in the 20th Century (Paris 1989);
-
Maddison, A., Dynamic forces in Capitalist Development. A long-run comparative
view (1991 Oxford);
-
Madsen, Jakob B., ‘Trade Barriers and the Collapse of World Trade during the Great
Depression‘, Southern Economic Journal, Vol.67, No.4 (Apr., 2001) 848-868;
-
Manning, A.F., ‘Nederland en het buitenland 1918-1940’, in Algemene Geschiedenis
der Nederlanden, 14, Nederland en België, 1914-1940 (Haarlem 1979) 336-365;
312
-
Mansfield, Edward D., and Brian Pollins, ‘The Study of Interdependence and Conflict:
Recent Advances, Open Questions and Directions for Future Research.’ Journal of
Conflict Resolution, Vol. 45, No.6 (2001) 834–859;
-
Mautner, Wilhelm, ‘Nederland en de Duitsche Leeningen’, In- en Uitvoer (January
1926) 37;
-
McCalla, Alex F., ‘Protectionism in International Agricultural Trade, 1850-1968’,
Agricultural History, Vol. 43, No. 3 (Jul., 1969) 329-344;
-
McDonald, Patrick J., ‘Peace through Trade or Free Trade?’ Journal of Conflict
Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Aug., 2004) 547-572;
-
McMillan, Susan M., ‘Interdependence and Conflict.’ Mershon International Studies
Review, Vol. 41, No. 1 (May 1997) 33-58;
-
MacNeil, William C., American Money and the Weimar Republic. Economics and
Politics on the Eve of the Great Depression (New York 1986);
-
Mendershausen, H., Two postwar recoveries of the German economy (Amsterdam
1955)
-
Metz, Th., Der Rheinschiffbau am deutschen Rhein und in den Niederlanden; ein
Beitrag zur Standortsfrage und zur Wirtschaftsgeographie (Stuttgart 1912);
-
Metz, Th., Die Niederlände als Käufer, Hersteller, Vermittler und Kreditgeber (Leipzig
1930);
-
Metz, Th., Fünfzig Jahre Niederländische Handelskammer für Deutschland, 19051955 (Den Haag 1955);
-
Meyer, Henry Cord, ‘German Economic Relations with Southeastern Europe, 18701914’, The American Historical Review, Vol.57, No.1 (Oct., 1951) 77-90;
-
Ministerie van Economische Zaken, De Landbouw-crisiswetgeving: beknopt overzicht
van de totstandkoming en werking van de landbouw-crisiswetgeving in Nederland
vanaf 1929 (Den Haag 1937-1940);
-
Mitchell, B.R., International Historical Statistics: Europe 1750-1988 (New York 1993);
-
Mixon, Scott, The Foreign Exchange Option Market, 1917-1921 (Unpublished
manuscript, April 2011)
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1333442 (11 October 2012);
-
Moeller, Robert G., ‘Peasants, Politics, and Pressure Groups in War and Inflation: A
Study of the Rhineland and Westphalia, 1914-1924’, The Journal of Economic
History, Vol. 42, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History (Mar., 1982) 223-227;
313
-
Moeyes, Paul, Buiten schot. Nederland tijdens de Eerste Wereldoorlog, 1914-1918
(Amsterdam 2001);
-
Mommsen, H., D. Petzina, and B. Weisbrod (eds.), Industrielles System und politische
Entwicklung in der Weimarer Republik (Düsseldorf 1977);
-
Morgan, F.W., ‘Rotterdam and waterway approaches to the Rhine’, Economic
Geography, Vol.24, No.1 (Jan., 1948) 1-18;
-
Morgan, F.W., ‘The Pre-War Hinterlands of the German North Sea Ports’,
Transactions and Papers (Institute of British Geographers), No.14 (1948) 45-55;
-
Morrow, James D., Randolph M. Siverson, Tressa E. Tabares, ‘The Political
Determinants of International Trade: The Major Powers, 1907-90’, The American
Political Science Review, Vol. 92, No. 3 (Sep., 1998) 649-661;
-
Most, O., Deutsche Verkehrsfragen unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des
niederrheinisch-westfälischen Industriebezirks (Duisburg 1927);
-
Most, O., Seehafenausnahmetarifee, Devisenwirtschaft und Rheinschiffahrt: kritische
Feststellungen und Bemerkungen zu einer Streitschrift gegen den Rhein (Jena 1937);
-
Mühlhausen, W. B. Altena, F. Boll, L. Geeraedts, F. Wielenga (eds.), Grenzgänger.
Persönlichkeiten des deutsch-niederländischen Verhältnisses. Horst Lademacher zum
65. Geburtstag (Münster 1998);
-
Murad, Anatol, ‘The Reichsbank in the Financial Crisis of 1931’, The Journal of
Business of the University of Chicago, Vol. 5, No. 2 (Apr., 1932) 175-191;
-
Nadler, Marcus, ‘Economic Interdependence, Present and Future’. American
Economic Review, Vol. 27, No. 1, Supplement, Papers and Proceedings of the Fortyninth Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (March 1937), 1-11;
-
Napp-Zinn, Anton Felix, Binnenschiffahrt und Eisenbahn. Werden, Gestalt und
Problem ihres Verhältnisses im Deutschen Reich (Leipzig 1928);
-
Nathan, Roger, Le rôle international des grands marchés financiers (Paris 1938);
-
Nederbragt, J.A., Herinneringen. Oud en nieuw uit het boek mijner gedachtenis (The
Hague 1950);
-
De Nederlandsche Bank N.V., Verslag door den president en door de commisarissen
uitgebracht in de algemeene vergadering van aandeelhouders van De Nederlandsche
Bank (Amsterdam 1918-1934);
-
Neiszen, J.H., De haven van Rotterdam (Rotterdam 1888)
314
-
Niehusen, P., Die Hamburger Kaufmannschaft und Ihre Haltung zur Exportförderung
in der Wiederaufbauphase des Deutschen Aussenhandels von 1918-1929 (PhD
dissertation Hamburg 1980);
-
Nierop, H.A. van, Schets van het bankwezen (Haarlem 1930);
-
Norris, George W., ‘Foreign Liabilities and Assets and the Dawes Plan’, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 120, American Policy and
International Security (Jul., 1925) 20-22;
-
Nurkse, Ragnar, Internationale Kapitalbewegungen (Vienna 1935);
-
Nusteling, H.P.H., De Rijnvaart in het tijdperk van stoom en steenkool, 1831-1914
(Amsterdam 1974);
-
Nye, Jr., Joseph S., and Robert O. Keohane (eds.),Transnational Relations and World
Politics (Cambridge, Ma. 1972);
-
Ohlin, Bertil, The course and phases of the world economic depression: report
presented to the Assembly of the League of Nations (Geneva 1931);
-
Oneal, John R., James Lee Ray, ‘New Tests of the Democratic Peace: Controlling for
Economic Interdependence, 1950–85’, Political Research Quarterly, 50(4) 1997,
751–775;
-
Oneal, J.R., Bruce M. Russett, ‘The Classical Liberals Were Right: Democracy,
Interdependence, and Conflict, 1950-1985’, International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 41,
No.2 (June 1997) 267-293;
-
Oneal, J.R., ‘The Kantian Peace: The Pacific Benefits of Democracy, Interdependence,
and International Organizations, 1885-1992’, World Politics, Vol. 52, No. 1 (Oct.,
1999) 1-37;
-
‘Onze groote banken in 1918 en de voorafgaande 5 jaren’, In- en Uitvoer. Handelseconomisch maandblad voor Nederland en zijne koloniën (23 July 1919);
-
O’Loughlin, John, Colin Flint, Luc Anselin, ‘The Geography of the Nazi Vote: Context,
Confession, and Class in the Reichstag Election of 1930’, Annals of the Association of
American Geographers, Vol. 84, No. 3 (Sep., 1994) 351-380;
-
O’Rourke, Kevin H., ‘The European Grain Invasion, 1870-1913’, The Journal of
Economic History, Vol. 57, No. 4 (December, 1997) 775-801;
-
Papayoanou, Paul A., ‘Interdependence, Institutions, and the Balance of Power:
Britain, Germany, and World War I’, International Security, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Spring,
1996) 42-76;
315
-
Paridon, C.W.A.M. van, E.K. Greup and A. Ketting, De handelsbetrekkingen tussen
Nederland en de Bondsrepubliek Duitsland (The Hague 1982);
-
Paridon, C.W.A.M. van, Profijtelijke relatie of knellende band? Over economische
ontwikkelingen in Duitsland en de invloed op Nederland (Amsterdam 1993);
-
Pellegom, A.C. van, De Nederlandsche kapitaal-export (s.l. 1919);
-
Peters, L.L., ‘Cooperative Competition in German Coal and Steel, 1893-1914’, The
Journal of Economic History, Vol. 42, No. 1, The Tasks of Economic History (Mar.,
1982) 227-230;
-
Petzina, Dietmar, ‘Elemente der Wirtschaftspolitik in der Spätphase der Weimarer
Republik’, Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Apr., 1973) 127-133;
-
Petzina, D., Die deutsche Wirtschaft in der Zwischenkriegszeit (Wiesbaden 1977);
-
Petzina, D., ‘Hauptprobleme der deutsche Wirtschaftspolitik 1932/33’,
Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1977) 18-55;
-
Petzina, D., (ed.), Zur Geschichte der Unternehmungsfinanzierung (Berlin 1990);
-
Pilat, Dirk, Dutch Agricultural Export Performance, 1846-1926 (Groningen 1989);
-
Plumpe, Werner, ‘Unternehmerverbände und industrielle Interessenpolitik seit
1870’, in Wolfgang Köllmann, Herman Korte, Ditemar Petzina, Wolfgang Weber
(eds.), Das Ruhrgebiet im Industriezeitalter: Geschichte und Entwicklung (Düsseldorf
1990) 656-727;
-
Pohl, Karl-Heinrich, Weimars Wirtschaft und die Aussenpolitik der Republik 19241926. Vom Dawes-Plan zum Internationalen Eisenpakt (Düsseldorf 1979);
-
Pollock, James K., ‘An Areal Study of the German Electorate, 1930-1933’, The
American Political Science Review, Vol. 38, No. 1 (Feb., 1944) 89-95;
-
Porter, Michael E., ‘Clusters and the New Economics of Competition’, Harvard
Business Review (November-December 1998) 77-90;
-
Porter, M.E., ‘Regions and the new economics of competition’, in A.J. Scott (ed.),
Global City Regions (Oxford 2001) 139-152;
-
Porter, M.E., ‘The economic Performance of Regions.’ Regional Studies, 37 (2003)
549-578;
-
Post, J.G., Besparingen in Nederland, 1923-1970: omvang en verdeling (Amsterdam
1972);
-
Posthumus Meyjes, Willem Christiaan, ‘Internationale ontwikkeling van de
Amsterdamsche effectenmarkt (een Nederlandsch belang)’, Haagsch Maandblad,
Deel V, No.3 (Sep., 1925) 287-295;
316
-
Posthumus Meyjes, W.C., Bankpolitiek (Haarlem 1931);
-
Pounds, N.J.G., ‘Lorraine and the Ruhr’, Economic Geography, Vol.33, No.2 (Apr.,
1957) 149-162;
-
Price, L.L., ‘Free Trade and Protection’, The Economic Journal, Vol.12, No.47 (Sept.,
1902) 305-319;
-
Prion, W., Der internationale Geld- und Kapitalmarkt nach dem Kriege (Munich
1920);
-
Ramaer, J.C., ‘Het goederenverkeer in Nederland in de laatste jaren.’ Tijdschrift van
het Koninklijk Nederlandsch Aardrijkskundig Genootschap. Tweede reeks dl. XLIII,
No.3 (mei 1926) 331-392;
-
Rappard, William E., ‘Germany at Geneva’, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Jul., 1926)
535-546;
-
Rapport der commissie van advies inzake de toelating van buitenlandsche emissies
(The Hague 1927);
-
Ratte, J., De Nederlandse Doorvoerpolitiek en de Vrije Vaart op de Internationale
Rijn: een Schets van het Ontstaan van de Vrije Doorvoer door Nederland (Rotterdam
1952);
-
Redelmeier, W., ‘Die Deutschen Banken in Amsterdam’, in M. de Vries (ed.),
Jubileumnummer 1916-1926 In- en Uitvoer: Handelseconomisch weekblad voor
Nederland en koloniën (Amsterdam 1926);
-
Renooij, D. C., De Nederlandse emissiemarkt van 1904 tot 1939 (PhD dissertation
Amsterdam 1951);
-
Repelius, F.H., ‘Niederlande, Geld- und Kapitalmarkt.’ In: M. Palyi, P. Quittner (eds),
Handwörterbuch des Bankwesens (Berlin 1933);
-
Riel, Arthur van, and Arthur Schram, ‘Weimar Economic Decline, Nazi Economic
Recovery, and the Stabilization of Political Dictatorship’, The Journal of Economic
History, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Mar., 1993) 71-105;
-
Riemens, H., De financiële ontwikkeling van Nederland (Amsterdam 1949);
-
Ritschl, Albrecht, and Mark Spoerer, ‘Das Bruttosozialprodukitn Deutschland nach
den amtlichen Volkseinkommens- und Sozialproduktsstatistiken 1901-1995’,
Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte (1997, Vol. 2) 27-54;
-
Ritschl, A., Deutschlands Krise und Konjunktur 1924-1934. Binnenkonjunktur,
Auslandsverschuldung und Reparationsproblem zwischen Dawes-Pland und
Transfersperre (Berlin 2002);
317
-
Ritschl, A., ‘The German Transfer Problem, 1920-1933: A Sovereign Debt
Perspective’, European Review of History (forthcoming);
-
Roberts, George E., ‘The Interdependence of Industry’, Advocate of Peace through
Justice, Vol. 85, No. 6 (June, 1923) 226-229;
-
Roberts, Richard, ‘The London Financial Crisis of 1914’, in Patrice Baubeau and
Anders Ögren (eds.), Convergence and Divergence of National Financial Systems:
Evidence from the Gold Standards, 1871-1971 (London 2011);
-
Robinson, William I., ‘Beyond Nation-State Paradigms: Globalization, Sociology, and
the Challenge of Transnational Studies’, Sociological Forum, Vol. 13, No. 4 (Dec.,
1998) 561-594;
-
Roode, H.S. de, ‘The Port of Rotterdam’, in M. de Vries (Ed.), Jubileumnummer 19161926 In- en Uitvoer: Handelseconomisch weekblad voor Nederland en koloniën
(Amsterdam 1926) 131-137;
-
Roos, F. de, W.J. Wieringa, Een halve eeuw rente in Nederland (Schiedam 1953);
-
Roowaan, Ries, ‘Naast de grote machten: Nederlands-Duitse politieke en
handelspolitieke betrekkingen 1918-1933’, in F.W. Boterman and M. Vogel (eds.),
Nederland en Duitsland in het interbellum: wisselweriking en contacten: van politiek
tot literatuur (Hilversum 2003);
-
Roowaan, R., Im Schatten der Großen Politik. Deutsch-Niederländische Beziehungen
zur Zeit der Weimarer Republik, 1918-1933 (Münster 2006);
-
Röpke, Wilhelm, German commercial policy (London 1934);
-
Rosecrance, Richard, and A. Alexandroff, W. Koehler, J. Kroll, S. Lacqueur, J. Stocker,
‘Whither Interdependence?’, International Organization, Vol. 31, No. 3 (Summer
1977) 425-471;
-
Rosecrance, R., William Gutowitz, ‘Measuring Interdependence: A Rejoinder’,
International Organization, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Summer, 1981) 553-556;
-
Rosecrance, R., The Rise of the Trading State: Commerce and Conquest in the
Modern World (New York 1985);
-
Rostow, Walt W., The World Economy. History & Prospect (London 1978);
-
Gemeente Rotterdam, Der Hafen von Rotterdam (Rotterdam 1920);
-
Gemeente Rotterdam, De haven van Rotterdam: beknopte geïllustreerde
beschrijving der havenwerken van Rotterdam (Rotterdam 1924, 5th printing, 1st
printing 1912);
318
-
Gemeente Rotterdam, The port of Rotterdam: a short illustrated description of the
docks and harbour works of the city of Rotterdam (Rotterdam 1912);
-
Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, Monthly Review (October 1920);
-
Rotterdamsche Bankvereeniging, Monthly Review (February 1928);
-
Rotterdamsche Bank-vereeniging, Monthly Review (February 1929);
-
Ru, J.H. de, Landbouw en Maatschappij: analyse van een boerenbeweging in de
crisisjaren (Deventer 1979);
-
Russett, Bruce, John R. Oneal, Triangulating Peace: Democracy, Interdependence,
and International Organizations. (New York 2001);
-
Saher, A.E. von, Nederland-Duitschland: handelspolitieke beschouwingen met een
volledige tekst-uitgave van de belangrijkste Nederlandsch-Duitsche
handelsverdragen: op verzoek van de Nederlandsche kamer van koophandel voor
Duitschland samengesteld (Den Haag 1935);
-
Saher, A.E.D. von, Het Nederlandsch-Duitsche handelsverkeer in zijne ontwikkeling
gedurende de jaren 1930 tot en met 1938 (Amsterdam 1939);
-
Sander, Franz, Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der Eisenbahnen des Ruhrgebietes und
ihre Beziehungen zum Wirtschaftsleben der westlichen (rheinischen) Ruhrstädte (PhD
dissertation Cologne University 1931);
-
Sarferaz, Samad, and Martin Uebele, ‘Tracking down the business cycle: A dynamic
factor model for Germany 1820–1913’, Explorations in Economic History 46 (2009)
368-387;
-
Sauer, Alfred, Deutsch-Holländische Handelsbeziehungen (PhD dissertation Köln
1933);
-
Schacht, H.G.H., Germany’s Economic Position (Berlijn 1925);
-
Schacht, H.G.H., Die Stabilisierung der Mark (Stuttgart 1927);
-
Schacht, H.G.H., ‘The Money Markets before and after the War’, Harvard Business
Review, vol. 9, no.2 (Jan. 1931);
-
Schaik, A. van, Crisis en protectie onder Colijn. Over econnomische doelmatigheid en
maatschappelijke aanvaardbaarheid van de Nederlandse handelspolitiek in de jaren
dertig (Alblasserdam 1986);
-
Scheu, Erwin, Deutschlands Wirtschaftsgeographische Harmonie (Breslau 1924);
-
Schiff, Erich, ‘Dutch foreign-trade policy and the infant-industry argument for
protection’, Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 50, no. 2 (Apr., 1942) 280-290;
319
-
Schilder, Sigmund, Die auswärtigen Kapitalanlagen vor und nach dem Weltkriege
(s.l. 1920);
-
Schmitz, W., (ed.), 50 Jahre Rhein-Verkehrs-Politik (Duisburg 1927);
-
Schmitz, W.J., Der Amsterdamer Geldmarkt mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Zinsschwankungen (Cologne 1931);
-
Schnabel, Isabel, ‘The German Twin Crisis of 1931’, The Journal of Economic History,
Vol. 64, No. 3 (Sep., 2004) 822-871;
-
Schneider, H.J., Der Wiederaufbau der Grosseisenindustrie an Rhein und Ruhr (Berlin
1930);
-
Schot, Johan, Jan-Pieter Smits, ‘Introductie: Globalisering en Geschiedenis’,
Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis, 3 (2007) 3-14;
-
Schröter, Harm G., Politik, Wirtschaft und internationale Beziehungen: Studien zu
ihrem Verhältnis in der Zeit zwischen den Weltkriegen (Mainz 1991);
-
Schumacher, H., ‘The Situation in the Ruhr’, The Economic Journal, Vol. 33, No.130
(Jun., 1923) 155-162;
-
Schuster, E.J., ‘The Question as to the Legality of the Ruhr Occupation’, The
American Journal of International Law, Vo. 18, No. 3 (Jul., 1924) 407-418;
-
Schuursma, R.L., Het onaannemelijk tractaat. Het verdrag met België van 3 april
1925 in de Nederlandse publieke opinie (Groningen 1975);
-
Schuursma, Rolf, ‘De beste van het interbellum. Herman Adriaan van Karnebeek
(1918-1927)’, in Duco Hellema, Bert Zeeman, Bert van der Zwan (eds.), De
Nederlandse ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken in de twintigste eeuw (The Hague
1999) 82-97;
-
Schuker, Stephen A., ‘American “Reparations” to Germany, 1919–33’, in Feldman,
G.D., Elisabeth Mueller-Luckner (eds.), Die Nachwirkungen der inflation auf die
deutsche Geschichte 1924-1933 (Munich 1985) 335-384;
-
Schwabe, K., ‘Reparation at the Paris Peace Conference, and Political Economy
versus National Sovereignty: Comment on Trachtenberg and McDougall’, The
Journal of Modern History, Vol. 51, No. 1 (Mar., 1979) 68-73;
-
Serton, P., Rotterdam als haven voor massale goederen : een bijdrage tot de
geografie van het verkeer (Nijmegen 1919 (PhD dissertation Utrecht));
-
Shearer, J. Ronald, ‘Shelter from the Storm: Politics, Production and the Housing
Crisis in the Ruhr Coal Fields, 1918-24’, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 34, No.
1 (Jan., 1999) 19-47;
320
-
Simons, J.G.W., Een achterlandverkenning : een factorenoverzicht enkele
beschouwingen over het begrip "achterland" aan de hand van literatuur (PhDdissertation Erasmus University Rotterdam 1984)
-
Sluyterman, Keetie E., Kerende Kansen. Het Nederlandse bedrijfsleven in de twintigse
eeuw (Amsterdam 2003);
-
Sluyterman, Keetie E., ‘Dutch Business during the First World War and its aftermath’,
in Carl-Johan Gadd, Staffan Granér and Sverker Jonsson (eds.), Markets and
Embeddedness. Essays in honour of Ulf Olsson (Göteborg 2004);
-
Sluyterman, Keetie, and Ben Wubs, Over Grenzen. Multinationals en de Nederlandse
markteconomie (Amsterdam 2009);
-
Smits, Jan Pieter, Herman de Jong and Bart van Ark, Three Phases of Dutch Economic
Growth and Technological Change, 1815-1997, Research Memorandum GD-42,
Groningen Growth and Development Centre (1999);
-
Smits, Jan-Pieter, Edwin Horlings and Jan Luiten van Zanden, Dutch GNP and its
Components, 1800-1913 (Groningen 2000);
-
Smits, J.P., E. Horlings and J.L. van Zanden, The measurement of Gross National
Product and its components, The Netherlands 1800-1913 (Research Memorandum
no. 1, N.W. Posthumus Insitute, Utrecht University) (February 1997);
-
Smits, J.P., 'The size and structure of the Dutch service sector in international
perspective, 1850-1914.' Economic and Social History in the Netherlands, Vol. 2
(1990) 81-98;
-
Smits, J.P., ‘Economische ontwikkeling, 1800-1995’, in Ronald van der Bie and Pit
Dehing (eds.) Nationaal goed. Feiten en cijfers over onze samenleving, (ca.)18001999 (Voorburg 1999) 15-36;
-
Smits, J.P., Pieter Woltjer and Debin Ma, A Dataset on Comparative Historical
National Accounts, ca. 1870-1950: A Time-Series Perspective, Research
memorandum GD-107 (Groningen 2009);
-
Sneller, Z. W., Geschiedenis van den Steenkolenhandel van Rotterdam (Groningen
1946);
-
Snoep, J.P., Amsterdam als internationaal financieel centrum (Amsterdam 1946);
-
Soest, J.J. van, Een bijdrage tot de kennis van de beteekenis der Nederlandsche
beleggingen in buitenlandsche fondsen voor de volkswelvaart (Utrecht 1938);
321
-
Spaulding, Robert Mark, ‘German Trade Policy in Eastern Europe, 1890-1990:
Preconditions for Applying International Trade Leverage’, International
Organization, Vol. 45, No. 3 (Summer, 1991) 343-368;
-
Spaulding, Robert Mark, Osthandel and Ostpolitik: German foreign trade policies in
Eastern Europe from Bismarck to Adenauer (Providence 1997);
-
Spiethoff, Arthur, Die wirtschaftlichen Wechsellagen: Aufschwung, Krise, Stockung,
Band II: Lange statistische Reihen über die Merkmale der wirtschaftlichen
Wechsellagen (Tübingen 1955);
-
Spoerer, Mark, ‘Weimar’s Investment and Growth Record in Intertemporal and
International Perspective’, European Review of Economic History 1, No. 3 (1997)
271–97;
-
Statistisches Bundesamt (ed.), Bevölkerung und Wirtschaft, 1872-1972 (Stuttgart
1972);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Verkehr der deutschen Binnenwasserstraßen im Jahr [19191926] (Berlin [1920-1927]);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Der auswärtige Handel Deutschlands im Jahre [1920-1931]
(Berlin [1924-1932]);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Seeschiffahrt im Jahre [1919-1931] (Berlin [1920-1932]);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Güterbewegung auf deutschen Eisenbahnen [19241931] (Berlin [1925-1932]);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Zahlen zur Geldentwertung in Deutschland 1914 bis 1923
(Berlin 1925);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Binnenschiffahrt im Jahre [1927-1931] (Berlin [19281932]);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die deutschen Banken 1924 bis 1926, Einzelschriften zur
Statistik des Deutschen Reichs Nr.3 (Berlin 1927);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die Wirtschaft des Auslandes 1900-1927 (Berlin 1928);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die deutsche Zahlungsbilanz der Jahre 1924-1933,
Sonderhefte zu Wirtschaft und Statistik Nr.14 (Berlin 1934);
-
Statistisches Reichsamt, Die deutsche Zahlungsbilanz nach Ländern, Statistik des
Deutschen Reichs; Einzelschrifte Nr.24 (Berlin 1934);
-
Stichting Havenbelangen, Der Hafen von Rotterdam (1920);
-
Stokvis, Pieter R. D., ‘International migration from the Netherlands, 1880-1920’,
European Contributions to American Studies, Vol.31 (1994) 155-169;
322
-
Strasser, Karl, Die deutschen Banken im Ausland. Entwicklungsgeschichte und
Wirtschaftliche bedeutung (Münich 1924);
-
Stresemann, G., Vermächtnis Der Nachlass. Bd. 2, Hrsg. v. H. Bernhard unter
Mitarbeit von W. Goetz u. P. Wiegler. (Berlin 1932-1933);
-
Strikwerda, Carl, ‘The Troubled Origins of European Economic Integration:
International Iron and Steel and Labor Migration in the Era of World War I’, The
American Historical Review, Vol. 98, No. 4. (Oct., 1993) 1106-1129;
-
Strohmayer, H.C., ‘De buitenlandsche schulden van Duitschland’, De Economist, Vol.
83, No. 1 (Dec., 1934) 31-41;
-
Stuber, Lothar, Die Seehafentarifpolitik der deutschen Eisenbahnen. Algemeine
Grundlagen, historische Entwicklung, Analyse der gegenwärtigen Situation und
künftige Gestaltungsprobleme im Gemeinsamen Markt (Düsseldorf 1969);
-
Stubmann, Peter, Holland und sein deutsches Hinterland in ihrem gegenseitigen
Warenverkehr, mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der holländischen Haupthäfen, seit
der Mitte des 19.Jahrhunderts. Eine handelsstatistische Studie (Jena 1901);
-
Stukgoedcommissie, Vergelijkende havenstatistieken van Rotterdam en andere
havens (Rotterdam [1914-1931]);
-
‘Supplement’, The Economist (December 18, 1915);
-
Taussig, F.W., ‘The Tariff Act of 1922’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.37,
No.1 (Nov., 1922) 1-28;
-
Taussig, F.W., ‘The Tariff Controversy with France’, Foreign Affairs, Vol.6, No.2 (Jan.,
1928) 177-190;
-
Taussig, F.W., ‘The Tariff, 1929-1930’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.44,
no.2 (Feb., 1930) 175-204;
-
Tetreault, Mary Ann, ‘Measuring Interdependence’, International Organization, Vol.
34, No. 3 (Summer, 1980) 429-443;
-
Tetreault, M.A., ‚Measuring Interdependence: A Response’, International
Organization, Vol.35, No.3 (Summer, 1981) 557-560;
-
Tetrode, P.J.C., ‘Het Buitenlandsch Kapitaal in Nederland’, Economisch Statistische
Berichten (31 Jan.1923) 86-88;
-
Teubert, Oskar, Die Binnenschiffahrt. Ein Handbuch für alle Beteiligten (Leipzig
1918);
-
Teubert, W., ‘Der Güterverkehr und seine Veränderungen in der Nachkriegszeit’,
Sonderheft 5, Vierteljahrshefte zur Konjunkturforschung (Berlin 1928);
323
-
Teubert, W., ‘Der Güterverkehr, Entwicklung und Aussichten’, Sonderheft 33,
Vierteljahrshefte zur Konjunkturforschung (Berlin 1933);
-
Tienhoven, J.P. van, Industrie en banken (de handel volgt de banken) (The Hague
1917);
-
Tiessen, E., Der Gesamt-Güterverkehr auf den deutschen Eisenbahnen, 1913 und
1922 (Berlin 1925);
-
Tiessen, E., Seehafenverkehr und Binnenschiffahrt im Deutschen Reich, 1913 und
1922 (Berlin 1925);
-
Tinbergen, J., ‘Schommelingen van de invoer 1923-1938’, Statistische en
econometrische onderzoekingen, Vol. 3, no. 2 (1948), 52-60;
-
Tooze, J. Adam, ‘Weimar’s Statistical Economics: ernst Wagemann, the Reich’s
Statistical Office, and the Institute for Business-Cycle Research, 1925-1933’, The
Economic History Review, New Series, Vol. 52, no. 3 (Aug., 1999) 523-543;
-
Tooze, J. A., Statistics and the German state, 1900-1945 : the making of modern
economic knowledge (s.l. 2001);
-
Tooze, J.A., ‘Trouble with Numbers: Statistics, Politics, and History in the
Construction of Weimar's Trade Balance, 1918–1924’, The American Historical
Review, Vol. 113, No. 3 (June 2008) 678-700;
-
Tosdal, H.R., ‘The German Steel Syndicate’, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol.
31, No. 2 (Feb., 1917) 259-306;
-
Traa, P.C. van, ‘De ontwikkeling van de internationale handel gedurende de
afgelopen honderd jaar’, in H. Baudet (ed.), Handelswereld en wereldhandel.
Honderd jaren internatio (Rotterdam 1963) 201-232;
-
Trachtenberg, M., ‘Poincare's Deaf Ear: The Otto Wolff Affair and French Ruhr Policy,
August-September 1923’, The Historical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Sep., 1981) 699-707;
-
Trezise, Philip H., ‘Interdependence and Its Problems’. International Journal, Vol. 29,
No. 4, Economic Interdependence (Autumn, 1974), 523-534;
-
Usher, Abbott Payson, ‘Interpretations of Recent Economic Progress in Germany’,
The American Historical Review, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Jul., 1918) 797-815;
-
Vasquez, John A., ‘Why Do Neighbors Fight? Proximity, Interaction, or Territoriality’.
Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 32, No. 3 (Aug., 1995) 277-293;
-
Veenendaal, A.J., Slow Train to Paradise. How Dutch Investment Helped Build
American Railroads (Stanford 1996);
324
-
Velde, M.W. van de, Le Port d’Anvers, aperçu de la situation économique et politique
du port national Belge en comparaison avec celle des ports de Rotterdam et
Dunkerque (Antwerp 1930);
-
Ven, G. P. van de, ‘Verbetering van de Rijntakken tussen 1850-1920’, Economisch- en
Sociaal-Historisch Jaarboek, Vol.46 (1983) 45-59;
-
Verdier, Daniel, ‘Democatization and Trade Liberalization in Industrial Capitalist
Countries, 1830s to 1930s’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 40, No.
4 (Oct., 1998) 587-608;
-
Verein Wahrung Rheinschiffahrtsinteressen, 75 Jahre Verein Wahrung der
Rheinschiffahrtsinteressen (Duisburg 1952);
-
Vernon, Raymond, ‘Multinational Business and National Economic Goals’,
International Organization, Vol. 25, No. 3, Transnational Relations and World Politics
(Summer, 1971) 693-705;
-
Verrijn Stuart, C.A., Inleiding tot de beoefening der statistiek (Haarlem 1917);
-
Verrijn Stuart, C.A., ‘De naderende crisis in Duitschland’, Economisch-Statistische
Berichten, Vol.7, No. 354 (1922) 872;
-
Verrijn Stuart, C.A., Volksvermogen und Volkseinkommen in den Niederlanden: XIXe
Session de l’Institut international de statistique, Tokyo (Den Haag 1930);
-
Verrijn Stuart, G.M., Bankpolitiek (Wassenaar 3rd ed. 1935)
-
Verseput, J., Kamer van Koophandel en Fabrieken voor Rotterdam, 1928-1955
(Rotterdam 1955);
-
Verseput, J., ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife tijdens de Weimarrepublik
1919-1933’ in Joh. De Vries (ed.), Ondernemende geschiedenis: 22 opstellen
geschreven bij het afscheid van Mr. H. van Riel als voorzitter van de Vereniging Het
Nederlandsch Economisch-Historisch Archief (‘s-Gravenhage 1977);
-
Verseput, J., ‘Nederland en de Seehafenausnahmetarife tijdens de Weimarrepubliek
1919-1933’, in Joh. de Vries (ed.), Ondernemende geschiedenis. 22 Opstellen
geschreven bij het afscheid van Mr. H. van Riel als voorzitter van de vereniging Het
Nederlandsch Economisch-Historisch Archief (The Hague 1977) 321–343;
-
Vessem, A.J. van, Een historische onjuistheid. De grondslag van minister Van
Karnebeek’s tractaat met België (Utrecht 1926);
-
Vessem, A.J. van, De verrassingen van het tractaat met België (Utrecht 1926);
-
Viner, Jacob, ‘The Prevalence of Dumping in International Trade: I’, Journal of
Political Economy, Vol.30, No.5 (Oct., 1922);
325
-
Vissering, Gerard, Crediet-verleenen in Nederland (Den Haag 1917);
-
Vissering, G., ‘The Netherlands Bank and the War.’ Economic Journal, Vol. 27, No.
106 (June, 1917) 159-186;
-
Vissering, G., Over den internationalen financieelen en economischen toestand (The
Hague 1920);
-
Vissering, G., ‘Ter Inleiding van de Nederlandse uitgave,’ in J.M. Keynes, De
economische gevolgen van den vrede (Amsterdam 2nd ed. 1922);
-
Vissering, G., ‘Buitenlandsche emissies’, In- en Uitvoer (October 1927) 4-5;
-
Vogt, M., ‘Das deutsch-niederländische Kreditabkommen und das 'Tubantia'Abkommen. Eine Episode in den deutsch-niederländischen Beziehungen der frühen
Zwischenkriegszeit’, in K.H. Oldenhage and W. Schreyer (eds.), Archiv und
Geschichte. Festschrift für Friedrich P. Kahlenberg (Düsseldorf 2000) 641-656;
-
Vollenhove, C. van, ‘Holland’s International Policy’, Political Science Quarterly, Vol.
34, No. 2 (Jun., 1919) 193-209;
-
Voorhoeve, J.J.C., Peace, Profits and Principles: a Study of Dutch Foreign Policy (The
Hague 1979);
-
Voth, Hans-Joachim, ‘Did High Wages or High Interest Rates Bring Down the Weimar
Republic? A Cointegration Model of Investment in Germany, 1925-1930’, The
Journal of Economic History, Vol. 55, No. 4 (Dec., 1995) 801-821;
-
Voth, Hans-Joachim, With a Bang, Not a Whimper: Pricking Germany’s ‘Stock Market
Bubble’ in 1927 and the Slide into Depression, Discussion Paper No.3257, Centre for
Economic Policy Research, March 2002. Available online at:
http://www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP3257.asp (accessed 18-08-2012);
-
Vries, Joh. de, Hoogovens IJmuiden 1918‐1968. Ontstaan en groei van een
basisindustrie (IJmuiden, 1968);
-
Vries, Joh. de, ‘Het economische leven 1918-1940’, in Algemene Geschiedenis der
Nederlanden (Haarlem 1988) deel 14, 102-146;
-
Vries, Joh. de, Geschiedenis van de Nederlandsche Bank. Vijfde deel: De
Nederlandsche Bank van 1914 tot 1948. Visserings tijdvak 1914-1931 (Amsterdam
1989);
-
Vries, Joh. de, (ed.), Wereldwijd bankieren, ABN AMRO 1824-1999 (Amsterdam
1999);
-
Vries, Max de, (ed.), ‘Holland-Deutschland Nummer’ (Amsterdam 1927), supplement
to In- en uitvoer, Vol. 12, no. 41 (10 Oct. 1927);
326
-
Vrij, M.P., Een Belgisch Rijnkanaal, een nationaal gevaar (Amsterdam 1919);
-
Wagenführ, Rolf, ‘Die Industriewirtschaft; Entwicklungstendenzen der deutschen
und internationalen Industrieproduktion, 1860 bis 1932’, Institut für
Konjunkturforschung; Vierteljahrshefte zur Konjunkturforschung, Sonderheft 31
(Berlin 1933);
-
Wagenführ, Rolf, ‘Die Bedeutung des Außenmarktes für die deutsche
Industriewirtschaft. Die Exportquote der deutschen Industrie von 1870 bis 1936’, in
Ernst Wagemann, ed., Sonderhefte des Instituts für Konjunkturforschung, No. 41
(Berlin 1936);
-
Walter, J., Enige economische beschouwingen over de Rijnscheepvaart (Assen 1951);
-
Waltz, Kenneth N., Man, the State, and War (New York 1959);
-
Waltz, K.N., ‘The myth of interdependence’, in Charles P. Kindleberger, The
International Corporation: A symposium (Cambridge, Ma. 1970) 205-207;
-
Warsch, W., Antwerpen, Rotterdam und ein Rhein-Maas-Scheldekanal (Duisburg
1920);
-
Webb, S.B., ‘Fiscal News and Inflationary Expectations in Germany After World War
I’, The Journal of Economic History, Vol. 46, No. 3 (Sep., 1986) 769-794;
-
Weigend, Guido G., ‘The Problem of Hinterland and Foreland as Illustrated by the
Port of Hamburg’, Economic Geography, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Jan., 1956) 1-16;
-
Welderen Rengers, Th. van, Duitsche stroomingen en het verworpen NederlandschBelgisch Verdrag (Leeuwarden 1928);
-
Wells, Louis T., ‘The Multinational Business Enterprise: What Kind of International
Organization?’, International Organization, Vol. 25, No. 3, Transnational Relations
and World Politics (Summer, 1971) 447-464;
-
Wemelsfelder, J., Het herstel van de Duits-Nederlandse economische betrekkingen
na de Tweede Wereldoorlog (Leiden 1954);
-
Westerman, W.M., De concentratie in ons bankwezen: een bijdrage tot de kennis der
economische ontwikkeling van onze tijd (Den Haag 1920);
-
Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, Aan het buitenland gehecht.
Over verankering en strategie van Nederlands buitenlandbeleid (Amsterdam 2010);
-
Wickert, Friedrich, Der Rhein und sein Verkehr mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der
Abhängigkeit von den natürlichen Verhältnissen (Stuttgart 1903);
-
Wielenga, Friso, West-Duitsland: partner uit noodzaak. Nederland en de
Bondsrepubliek 1949-1955 (Utrecht 1989);
327
-
Wielenga, F., Van vijand tot bondgenoot. Nederland en Duitsland na 1945
(Amsterdam 1999);
-
Wielenga, F., Die Niederlande: Politik und politische Kultur im 20. Jahrhundert
(Münster 2008);
-
Williams, John H., ‘German Foreign Trade and the Reparation Payments’, The
Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 36, No. 3 (May, 1922) 482-503;
-
Wolf, Nikolaus, ‘Was Germany ever united? Evidence from Intra- and International
Trade, 1885-1933.’ Journal of Economic History 69 (3), September 2009, 846-881
-
Wulf, Jurgen, Der Deutsche Außenhandel seit 1850. Entwicklung,
Strukturwandlungen und Beziehungen zum Wirtschaftswachstum (Stuttgart 1968);
-
Wynn, Arthur, ‘A Note on German Agriculture’, The Economic Journal, Vol. 43, No.
171 (Sept., 1933) 518-524;
-
Young, Ralph A., ‘Great Britain’s Recent Trend toward Protection’, Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 135, Great Inland Water-Way
Projects in the United States (Jan., 1928) i, iii,v-vii, 189-250;
-
Ysselstein, H.A. van, Le port de Rotterdam (Rotterdam 1908);
-
Zaaijer, J., Het Nederlandsche Deltagebied (Rijn, Schelde, Tusschenwateren). Een
juridisch-politieke beschouwing (Leiden 1930);
-
Zanden, Jan L. van, Een klein land in de 20e eeuw: economische geschiedenis van
Nederland 1914-1995 (Utrecht 1997);
-
Zanden, Jan L. van, The Economic History of the Netherlands 1914-1995. A small
open economy in the ‘long’ twentieth century (London 1998);
-
Zeeland, T. van, ‘Onder Wilhelmina’s vleugels. Frans Beelaerts van Blokland (19271933), in Duco Hellema, Bert Zeeman, Bert van der Zwan (eds.), De Nederlandse
ministers van Buitenlandse Zaken in de twintigste eeuw. Vijfde jaarboek van de
geschiedenis van de Nederlandse buitenlandse politiek in de twintigste eeuw (Den
Haag 1999) 99-111;
-
Zentral-Kommission für die Rheinschiffahrt, Jahres-Berichten der ZentralKommission für die Rheinschiffahrt [1920-1931] (Strasbourg [1921-1932]).
328
Stellingen gerelateerd aan het proefschrift van Jeroen Euwe, 1. In de jaren twintig van de twintigste eeuw kon Amsterdam tot het belangrijkste internationale financiële centrum van het Europese continent uitgroeien dankzij de Duitse behoefte aan een centrum van waaruit de Duitse invoer kon worden gefinancierd. 2. De Amsterdamse financiële markt was van groter belang voor de Duitse economie dan de financiële markt van London of New York. 3. De sterke Nederlandse band met Duitsland is in feite een band met het uitgebreide Ruhr-­‐gebied. 4. De Duitse nederlaag in de Eerste Wereldoorlog leidde tot sterkere economische en politieke banden tussen Nederland en Duitsland. 5. De teleurstellende resultaten van de onderhandelingen die leidden tot het Douane-­‐ en Kredietverdrag van 1925 waren eerder het gevolg van onderlinge strijd tussen Nederlandse belanghebbenden en gebrekkige leiding aan Nederlandse kant, dan van Duitse onwil Nederland ter wille te zijn. 6. De ontwikkelingen op de Nederlandse kunstmarkt ten tijde van de Eerste Wereldoorlog en tijdens de Duitse inflatie direct daarna, alsmede tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog, tonen aan dat monetaire instabiliteit gepaard gaat met verhoogde activiteit op die markt. 7. De export van kunstwerken naar Duitsland tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog kwam in laatste instantie voor rekening van de Nederlandse overheid, en daarmee de Nederlandse burger. 8. In wetenschappelijke publicaties wordt dit jaar al drie decennia gepoogd de houding van de Nederlandse bevolking tijdens de Tweede wereldoorlog in genuanceerder termen weer te geven. Het is de hoogste tijd dat ook de populair-­‐
wetenschappelijke pers deze periode in genuanceerder kleurschakeringen weergeeft. 9. De Hawker Hurricane speelde een belangrijker rol in de Battle of Britain dan de Supermarine Spitfire. 10. Sinds de introductie van het Shearer-­‐systeem in 1935 zijn er geen fundamentele verbeteringen in luidsprekertechnologie gedaan. 11. Een proefschrift wordt beter door regelmatig een flinke wandeling te maken. Wandelen is in dit geval werken: ontspanning en arbeid liggen in de wetenschap dicht bij elkaar. Summary in Dutch
Samenvatting in het Nederlands
Het onderzoek
Dit onderzoek maakt deel uit van het door de Nederlandse Organisatie voor
Wetenschappelijk (NWO) gefinancierde project The Netherlands and Germany 18702000: Economic interdependence versus sovereignty, en analyseert de periode 19181931. De centrale onderzoeksvraag daarbij is hoe na de Duitse nederlaag in 1918 de
Duits-Nederlandse economische banden veranderden, en welke consequenties dit,
samen met de Duitse politieke ontwikkelingen, had voor de politieke verhoudingen
tussen beide landen. De Nederlandse en de Duitse economie raakten vanaf de
tweede helft van de negentiende eeuw steeds meer van elkaar afhankelijk. De vraag
is, hoe deze economische interdependentie de politieke banden tussen beide landen
heeft beïnvloed. Het debat over de relatie tussen economie en politiek,
afhankelijkheid en interdependentie wordt al eeuwen gevoerd. De spanning tussen
afhankelijkheid en onafhankelijkheid was al een thema in het werk van Macchiavelli
in de zestiende eeuw. De econoom Adam Smith schreef al in 1776 dat handel het
gevolg was van wederzijdse behoeften, en dat dit leidde tot een wederzijdse
afhankelijkheid die slechts tegen hoge kosten kon worden opgegeven. De filosoof
Immanuel Kant bracht de politieke en economische aspecten van het concept
interdependentie samen in zijn werk Zum ewigen Frieden, en legde daarmee de basis
voor de liberale interdependentietheorieën die binnen de sociale wetenschappen
worden gebruikt voor de analyse van de gevolgen van economische banden op de
politieke verhoudingen tussen staten. Hoewel er binnen de liberale theorieën
verschillende inzichten bestaan over de precieze causale verbanden tussen
economische banden en politieke relaties, delen zij alle het inzicht dat intense,
wederzijds profijtelijke economische banden de kans op (militaire) conflicten
verminderen, aangezien de kosten voor beide partijen te hoog zijn. Dit liberale
inzicht wordt niet gedeeld door de (neo)realisten. Binnen deze stroming wordt de
nadruk gelegd op het belang van de machtsbalans tussen staten. Staten richten zich
329
daarom op veiligheid, en hun politieke verhoudingen met andere staten worden
vanuit dit gezichtspunt bepaald. De sleutel tot vrede ligt voor de realisten in de
verdeling van macht. Waar zij verschillen van inzicht is of dit een unipolaire, bipolaire
of multipolaire verdeling moet zijn. Het is dan ook weinig verwonderlijk, dat realisten
bij economische interdependentie niet zozeer denken in termen van wederzijdse
afhankelijkheid, maar meer in termen van afhankelijkheid en onafhankelijkheid, van
macht en zwakheid. Daarom richten de (neo)realisten zich meer op asymmetrische
interdependentie, waar één van de partijen zich in een relatief meer afhankelijke
positie bevindt. Binnen het (neo)realisme bestaan twee basis-hypotheses over de
link tussen interdependentie en (gewapende) conflicten tussen staten. Volgens de
ene hypothese leidt economische interdependentie tot een verhoogde kans op
conflicten omdat de afhankelijkheid die het met zich meebrengt leidt tot
onveiligheid, onder meer vanwege een afhankelijkheid van de invoer van strategisch
belangrijke goederen, juist datgene wat een staat altijd zal vermijden. De tweede
hypothese stelt dat er geen significant verband tussen de twee bestaat, omdat
politieke en militair-strategische overwegingen belangrijker zijn dan alle andere
factoren. Zowel de voorstanders van de verschillende liberale theorieën als de
(neo)realisten pogen hun gelijk aan te tonen door middel van statistische modellen.
Dat betekent, dat zij moeten expliciteren wat economische interdependentie
inhoudt, en bovendien het niveau van deze interdependentie dienen te bepalen.
Deze modellen zijn daarom bestudeerd met het oog op hun toepassing op de
Nederlands-Duitse economische banden. Daarbij bleek dat geen van de bestaande
modellen voldoet, omdat zij allen essentiële elementen missen. Zowel voor het
aantonen van interdependentie in het algemeen, het bepalen van de aard van deze
interdependentie, alsmede voor het bepalen van het niveau ervan zijn zij ongeschikt.
Juist de analyse van deze modellen heeft echter wel geleid tot een inzicht in hoe de
economische interdependentie tussen Nederland en Duitsland het beste kon
worden bepaald. Op grond van deze inzichten is er voor gekozen het onderzoek te
richten op drie deelaspecten, te weten de financieel-monetaire banden, de
handelsbanden, en de transportsector. Nadat aldus de economische banden zijn
ontleed, was het mogelijk de samenhang met de politieke relaties te analyseren.
330
Verweven economieën
Tijdens de tweede helft van de negentiende eeuw raakten de Nederlandse en de
Duitse economie verweven. Toen vanaf de jaren zestig van de negentiende eeuw de
industrialisatie van het Duitse Ruhrgebied versnelde, nam het belang van de
Nederlandse handel en het transport van en naar dit gebied steeds meer toe.
Transport werd steeds goedkoper, wat er toe leidde dat vanaf de jaren zeventig de
Europese markt overspoeld werd met goedkoop graan uit Amerika en Rusland. In
reactie op de resulterende crisis in de landbouw stelde Duitsland hoge
invoertarieven in om zo de eigen landbouwsector te beschermen. Voor Nederland
was dit geen optie, aangezien de Nederlandse handel de voorbije decennia sterk had
geprofiteerd van de opkomst van de vrijhandel. De landbouw schakelde in plaats
daarvan om naar tuinbouw, intensieve landbouw en veeteelt. Hierdoor nam zowel
de invoer van kunstmest voor de tuinbouw en intensieve landbouw als de invoer van
granen sterk toe, aangezien niet alleen de bevolking, maar ook de veehouders,
varkensfokkers, en pluimveehouders een grote behoefte aan granen hadden. De
productie van de landbouwsector raakte steeds meer gespecialiseerd, en oversteeg
al snel de binnenlandse behoefte. Aangezien deze producten voor het merendeel
sterk bederfelijk waren, was Nederland aangewezen op nabije afzetmarkten. Deze
werd in steeds sterkere mate gevonden in het Duitse Ruhrgebied en de aanpalende
gebieden, waar de bevolking vanwege de uitbreidende industrie sterk groeide.
Tezelfdertijd vond ook in Nederland een industrialiseringsproces plaats. Aangezien
de Nederlandse bodem nauwelijks grondstoffen voor de industrie opleverde,
moesten deze worden ingevoerd. In hoeveelheid was steenkool de belangrijkste van
deze grondstoffen. Deze steenkool kwam aanvankelijk uit Engeland, maar de Engelse
steenkool werd tijdens het laatste decennium van de negentiende eeuw verdrongen
door kolen uit het Ruhrgebied. Aangezien in Nederland geen basisindustrie zoals
hoogovens bestond, werden grote hoeveelheden ijzer en staal ten behoeve van
vooral de machinebouw en scheepsbouw ingevoerd. Ook hier werden de
handelsbanden met Duitsland steeds sterker. En tenslotte vonden Duitse producten
zoals messen, scharen en dergelijke uit Solingen, porselein uit Thüringen en
speelgoed uit Württemberg in toenemende mate hun weg naar de Nederlandse
consument.
331
De groeiende handel was niet enige manier waarop de Nederlandse en
Duitse economieën steeds belangrijker voor elkaar werden. Door de regulering en
kanalisering werd de Rijn steeds beter bevaarbaar, en door de technologische
vooruitgang werden de schepen groter en gingen de vrachtprijzen omlaag. Dankzij
de opkomst van de Rijnvaart werd de Rotterdamse haven een steeds geduchter
concurrent voor de havens van Hamburg en Antwerpen, die beiden veel meer op
goederentransport per trein waren aangewezen. Aan de vooravond van de Eerste
Wereldoorlog waren de economische banden van Nederland met Duitsland dermate
sterk, dat de Duitse generale staf besloot dat in geval van oorlog de Nederlandse
neutraliteit moest worden gerespecteerd. Als neutraal land werd Nederland een
sleutelrol toegedicht in de Duitse in- en uitvoer. Dankzij de Britse zeeblokkade en de
Duitse onderzeebootoorlog kwam hiervan echter niets terecht.
Nederland en Duitsland na de oorlog
Na de oorlog was de wereld veranderd. De internationale handel was sterk
teruggelopen, en werd bemoeilijkt door economische problemen in geheel Europa.
De economieën van de belligerenten waren sterk verzwakt, hetgeen ook een
bedreiging vormde voor de economie van de neutrale landen. De meeste Europese
landen kampten met monetaire instabiliteit, waardoor het herstel van de bloeiende
vooroorlogse internationale handel bemoeilijkt werd. Een spoedig herstel van de
internationale handel was van het grootste belang voor Nederland, maar werd sterk
bemoeilijkt door de monetaire instabiliteit in bijna heel Europa. Nederland was één
van de weinige landen met een stabiele munt en een ruime geld- en kapitaalmarkt.
Vooraanstaande Nederlandse bankiers, voorgegaan door Gerard Vissering –
president van De Nederlandsche Bank – ontplooiden talloze initiatieven om het
internationale betalingsverkeer weer op orde te krijgen, zodat de handel weer kon
herleven. Wat in Nederland vooral veel zorgen wekte, was de desastreuze
economische en politieke situatie in Duitsland. Niet alleen werd er gevreesd dat de
politieke instabiliteit naar Nederland zou overslaan, maar ook waren de Nederlandse
politiek en ondernemers zich er van bewust dat Nederland zonder een Duits
economisch herstel zware tijden tegemoet zou gaan. Er werd dan ook al snel in
332
ondernemerskringen en de regering gesproken over financiële steun in de vorm van
kredietverlening.
Monetaire en financiële banden
In 1920 besloot de Nederlandse regering een krediet van ƒ 200 miljoen aan Duitsland
te verlenen. Hiervan was ƒ 60 miljoen te besteden aan Nederlandse
voedselproducten, terwijl de resterende ƒ 140 miljoen een zogenaamd revolverend
krediet was (dat wil zeggen na afbetaling kwam het krediet weer beschikbaar) voor
de aanschaf van grondstoffen voor de Duitse industrie. Zo werd niet alleen het ook
voor Nederland zo belangrijke herstel van de Duitse economie bevorderd, ook was
Nederland verzekerd van een – zij het kleine – minimumhoeveelheid steenkolen op
een moment dat in heel Europa een potentieel voor de industrie verlammende
kolennood heerste. Bovendien kreeg de Nederlandse export naar Duitsland zo een
steun in de rug, terwijl overeengekomen was dat het vervoer van de aan te kopen
grondstoffen zo veel mogelijk over Nederlandse havens zou geschieden.
Terwijl over het krediet onderhandeld werd, was de Nederlandse financiële
markt in hoog tempo aan het internationaliseren. Dit proces, dat in belangrijke mate
gereguleerd werd door De Nederlandsche Bank, leidde ertoe dat Amsterdam
uitgroeide tot het belangrijkste internationaal financieel centrum van continentaal
Europa, en tot de belangrijkste financier van de Duitse handel en industrie. De
financiële banden tussen Nl en Dl waren al tijdens de oorlog aanzienlijk sterker
geworden, omdat de Nlse export naar Dl door Nlse banken werd gefinancierd.
Naarmate in de loop van de oorlog de inflatie in Duitsland toenam, vloeide
bovendien een toenemende stroom vluchtkapitaal richting Nederland. Vanaf het
eind van de oorlog vestigden bovendien Duitse banken zich in grote getale in
Nederland. Bijna al deze banken kozen ervoor een Nederlandse firma op te richten,
waardoor deze banken voor de wet Nederlandse banken waren. De keuze voor
Nederland was logisch. Voor de oorlog was het grootste deel van de Duitse handel
gefinancierd via Londen. Aangezien dit financiële centrum niet langer toegankelijk
was, hadden de Duitsers behoefte aan een neutraal financieel centrum. De keuze
viel op Amsterdam vanwege de stabiele gulden, de ruime geldmarkt, de gunstige
belastingwetgeving en het Nederlandse bankgeheim. Bovendien was Amsterdam
333
niet alleen dichtbij, de belangrijke handel met Nederland en de rol van de
Nederlandse transportsector maakten het een voor de hand liggende keuze ook de
financiële afhandeling van de handel via Nederland te laten verlopen. Zoals het
Duitse generaal-consulaat het uitdrukte werd de Nederlandse gulden ‘Duitslands
door goud gedekte munt’, en keerde Duitsland ‘terug op de wereldmarkt onder de
Nederlandse vlag’. Tegen het einde van de jaren twintig financierde de Nederlandse
geldmarkt zo’n 10 procent van de Duitse invoer. Daarnaast werden op de
kapitaalmarkt vele obligaties van de Duitse industrie geplaatst. Dit alles werd
gefinancierd vanuit de mede door de Nederlandse spaarzin en de inkomsten uit de
koloniën ruime Nederlandse geldmarkt, het meeste Duitse vluchtkapitaal was snel
na de Duitse monetaire stabilisatie gerepatrieerd. Toen na de Duitse economische
ineenstorting van 1931 de balans van de Duitse buitenlandse schulden werd
opgemaakt, bleek dat de Verenigde Staten weliswaar de belangrijkste schuldeiser
was, maar dat deze voornamelijk geld had uitstaan bij banken in Duitsland. De
tweede schuldeiser was Nederland, wiens kredietverlening de nauwe economische
banden met Duitsland perfect weerspiegelden: de Nederlandse banken waren veruit
de belangrijkste financiers van de Duitse handel en industrie. Ook in de uitstaande
Duitse schulden bij de buitenlandse handel en industrie waren Nederlandse handel
en industrie de belangrijkste schuldeisers.
De financiële banden tussen de beide buurlanden gingen echter verder dan
financiële dienstverlening: direct na de oorlog waren de Duitse banken niet de
enigen die in Nederland investeerden, de Duitse handel en industrie deden
hetzelfde. Ook in deze gevallen werden veelal Nederlandse firma’s opgericht. Dankzij
de steeds lagere wisselkoers van de mark tijdens de periode tot november 1923
zagen Nederlandse bedrijven, die door de Duitse monetaire problemen hun
goederen daar niet meer konden afzetten, hun kans schoon. Door tegen
bodemprijzen in Duitsland bedrijven op te richten of over te nemen verkregen zij
daar productiecapaciteit, waardoor zij hun marktaandeel in Duitsland konden
beschermen. Een succesvol voorbeeld hiervan vormen de firma’s van Van den Bergh
en van Jurgens, die later met de Britse firma Lever Brothers zouden samengaan in
Unilever. Tegen het einde van 1921 zouden beide firma’s volgens sommige bronnen
meer dan 80 procent van de Duitse markt voor margarine hebben veroverd. Zo
334
leidden de Duitse monetaire problemen en de behoefte aan kredieten tot nieuwe en
nauwere economische banden tussen Nederland en Duitsland dan ooit tevoren.
Nederlands-Duitse handelsbanden
Bij het verdrag van Versailles verloor Duitsland grondgebied in het westen, noorden
en oosten van het land. In het westen verloor Duitsland belangrijke
ijzerertsvoorraden, terwijl het in het oosten een belangrijk industriegebied en verder
landbouwgebieden verloor. Hierdoor werd het economisch belang van het
Ruhrgebied vergroot, en had het land – omdat het relatief veel minder inwoners
verloor – meer behoefte aan de invoer van sommige grondstoffen, maar vooral van
voedsel. Voor de oorlog bestond 30 procent van de Duitse invoer uit voedsel, na de
oorlog werd dit 40 procent. Bovendien werd nu minder voedsel uitgevoerd. Deze
verandering in de structuur van de Duitse internationale handel had grote
consequenties voor de handel met Nederland. Het Nederlandse aandeel in de Duitse
invoer steeg van 3 procent in 1913 naar bijna 6 procent in 1925. Ook het aandeel in
de Duitse uitvoer steeg aanmerkelijk, van 7 procent naar 11 procent. Dat juist
Nederland kon profiteren van de sterkere Duitse behoefte aan voedselimporten
kwam voor een belangrijk deel door het toegenomen belang van de Ruhrindustrie.
De industrie aldaar breidde uit, en de bevolking groeide mee. Net over de grens
bevond zich dus een sterk groeiende markt voor de producten van de Nederlandse
landbouw en voedselindustrie. Gedurende de jaren twintig bestond de Nederlandse
uitvoer naar Duitsland dan ook voor zo’n 65 tot 75 procent uit voedselproducten,
zoals groente, vis, vlees, en vooral melkproducten. Gedurende de naoorlogse Duitse
crisis vonden enkel die producten waarvoor geen goedkoop substituut bestond,
zoals groente, nog een – zij het sterk gekrompen – markt in Duitsland. Toen de
Duitse economie zich vanaf 1924 herstelde, was het de vraag naar de meer luxe
voedselproducten die als eerste opbloeide, hetgeen de dramatische toename van de
Nederlandse uitvoer naar Duitsland verklaart.
Het grote Nederlandse aandeel in de Duitse uitvoer lag aan de grotere vraag
naar (half)fabrikaten zoals machines en kunstmest voor de industrie en de
landbouw, grondstoffen (voornamelijk steenkool), en consumentengoederen zoals
textiel en ijzerwaren. Gedurende de twintiger jaren bleef de invoer uit Duitsland
335
toenemen, pas vanaf 1930 nam zij af. Eén van de kenmerken van de depressie van
de jaren dertig was echter, dat de prijzen daalden. Wanneer hiervoor wordt
gecompenseerd, blijkt dat de invoer uit Duitsland nauwelijks afnam, vooral in
vergelijking tot de invoer uit andere landen. Het omgekeerde geldt voor de
Nederlandse uitvoer naar Duitsland. Omdat Duitsland harder dan andere landen
werd getroffen door de crisis, daalde de Nederlandse uitvoer naar het buurland
sneller dan die naar andere landen.
Transport
‘De ruggegraat van de economische banden van de [Duitse, J.E.] Rijngebieden met
Nederland is de Rijn’, zo schreef Konrad Adenauer – de latere Bondskanselier,
destijds burgemeester van Keulen – in 1930, vlak voordat de economische crisis in
Duitsland toesloeg. In zijn opvatting ging het hier om een transnationale
economische regio, zij het dat hij deze term, die pas later ingang zou vinden, niet
gebruikte. In de Nederlands-Duitse economische banden speelt vervoer dan ook een
zeer belangrijke rol. Als we kijken naar de transportstromen binnen Duitsland, dan
blijkt dat het Ruhrgebied het economische hart van Duitsland was. Bovendien was
het merendeel van het Duitse internationale goederenverkeer in feite transport van
en naar het Ruhrgebied. Dit gebied was echter niet alleen het economische hart van
Duitsland, maar vormde het hart van een economische regio die zich uitstrekte over
de Duitse Rijnoeverstaten, Noord-Frankrijk, België en Nederland. Uit de
transportstromen blijkt dat het hart van deze regio bestond uit het Ruhrgebied, dat
fungeerde als productiecentrum, en de verbinding met de Rotterdamse haven, die
fungeerde als distributiecentrum. De rol van Antwerpen was – in tonnage –
ondergeschikt.
Het merendeel van dit transport geschiedde over de Rijn. In het transport van
en naar het Ruhrgebied vormden de schepen onder de Nederlandse vlag een
overweldigende meerderheid. Een aanzienlijk deel van deze schepen was in feite in
Duitse handen, hoewel ook deze laatste term problematisch is vanwege de
uitgebreide Nederlandse investeringen in Duitsland en vice versa. Veel van de
schepen in kwestie waren gefinancierd door Nederlandse banken, en maakten deel
uit van Nederlandse dochterfirma’s van Duitse bedrijven. Ook in de transportsector
336
vervaagden in deze periode het onderscheid tussen Nederlandse en Duitse
bedrijven.
Het is in de jaren twintig, dat de Rotterdamse haven haar rivalen Hamburg en
Antwerpen in tonnage voorbijstreefde. Dit was echter niet alleen het gevolg van het
Rijnvervoer, ook het Nederlandse transport van en naar Duitsland per trein was
omvangrijker dan dat van België. De Nederlandse transportsector was Duitslands
belangrijkste partner in internationaal transport.
Politieke relaties
Gezien het belang van de economische banden tussen beide landen zal het weinig
verwondering wekken dat hun politieke relaties zich op dit aspect concentreerden.
Er waren schadeclaims van Nederlandse burgers in verband met oorlogsschade, een
grenssteen viel om, zulk waren de meeste kwesties die speelden. De enige kwestie
van enig belang was het langlopende grensconflict met betrekking tot de monding
van de Eems. Wellicht met het oog op de onderhandelingen over het Kolen en
Kredietverdrag was de Duitse regering in januari 1920 bereid aan de Nederlandse
wensen tegemoet te komen tegen enkel de Nederlandse belofte dat enige
economische tegemoetkoming overwogen zou worden. Toch werd van deze
gelegenheid geen gebruik gemaakt, waarschijnlijk omdat het de Nederlandse
regering beter uitkwam dat de zaak onopgelost bleef.
Ook in de economische kwesties leken de relaties aanvankelijk goed. Het
merendeel van de Nederlands-Duitse politieke relaties had betrekking op de handel.
Gezien het belang hiervan voor vooral de Nederlandse economie is dit niet
verwonderlijk. Al in het begin van de jaren twintig werden maatregelen genomen om
het grensverkeer tussen beide landen te vergemakkelijken. Vanaf 1924 zouden de
relaties echter danig onder druk komen te staan. In maart van dat jaar werden de
Seehafenausnahmetarife opnieuw ingevoerd. Deze voorkeurstarieven bestonden
ook voor de oorlog al, en waren bedoeld om het transport per trein over lange
trajecten aantrekkelijker te maken. Hierdoor werd vervoer dat normaal naar
Antwerpen of Rotterdam zou gaan naar de Duitse Noordzeehavens gelokt. Vanwege
de bepalingen van het verdrag van Versailles was Duitsland verplicht deze tarieven
ook – indien zij daartoe een verzoek indienden – aan de landen van de Entente toe
337
te kennen. De Rotterdamse haven dreigde dus een aanzienlijke hoeveelheid verkeer
te verliezen aan zowel Hamburg als Antwerpen. Bovendien begonnen de Duitsers
dat jaar met een herziening van de invoerrechten, die zij het jaar daarop wilden
invoeren. Voor de oorlog werd de Duitse landbouwsector beschermd door hoge
invoerrechten. Met het uitbreken van de oorlog waren deze afgeschaft omdat er een
grote behoefte aan voedselimporten bestond. Deze behoefte bleef ook na de oorlog
bestaan, en daarom waren de invoerrechten niet opnieuw ingevoerd. Voor vele
industriële producten werden de invoerrechten nu juist sterk verhoogd. Dit had geen
invloed op de onderlinge concurrentiepositie van de verschillende handelspartners,
omdat Duitsland, dat met het verdrag van Versailles gedwongen werd tot 1925 aan
de landen van de Entente meestbegunstiging toe te kennen, deze status aan alle
handelspartners schonk. In 1925 veranderde deze situatie. Omdat het land ook
gedwongen was herstelbetalingen te doen, had het behoefte aan een actieve
handelsbalans dan wel een grote kapitaalimport. Nu Berlijn vrij was in het bepalen
van de Duitse handelspolitiek, werd een nieuw tariefsysteem ingevoerd dat
Duitsland kon gebruiken in onderhandelingen met andere landen. Onder druk van de
landbouwsector werden, ondanks de Duitse behoefte aan de invoer van voedsel,
ook de invoerrechten op voedsel sterk verhoogd.
Bij de onderhandelingen voor een nieuw handelsverdrag werden de
Nederlanders in eerste instantie zeer welwillend behandeld. Den Haag wist maar al
te goed dat het vanwege de Nederlandse vrijhandelspolitiek niets te bieden had, en
probeerde daarom de Duitsers te doordringen van het grote belang van deze
Nederlandse politiek voor de Duitse economie. Berlijn was hiervan maar al te goed
op de hoogte, en bood al direct meestbegunstiging aan. Nederlandse
belangengroepen voor verschillende landbouwsectoren wensten echter specifieke
Duitse tariefconcessies, en minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Van Karnebeek maakte
bovendien de fout de Duitse voorkeurstarieven voor treinvervoer bij het
handelsverdrag te betrekken. Vanzelfsprekend haperden de onderhandelingen.
Inmiddels was frictie ontstaan tussen de verschillende Nederlandse ministeries die
ieder hun eigen belangen voorstonden. De aanvankelijk heldere Nederlandse
wensen werden steeds onduidelijker, terwijl onder invloed van
belangengroeperingen nu ook de pers zich deed horen: na alles wat Nederland voor
338
Duitsland had gedaan toonde Berlijn zich ondankbaar en vijandig. Toen in oktober
1925 de onderhandelingen snel moesten worden afgerond, vroegen de Duitse
onderhandelaars om verlenging van het krediet van f 160 miljoen dat in 1920 was
verlengd, tegen een half procent lagere rente. Hiermee gingen de Nederlandse
onderhandelaars akkoord, en in december werd het Douane- en Credietverdrag
getekend. Door een sterke oppositie in de Tweede Kamer zou het echter nog negen
maanden duren voor het werd geratificeerd.
Door de chaotische totstandkoming van het verdrag is moeilijk te bepalen of
de Nederlanders welwillend werden behandeld. Het resultaat werd weliswaar sterk
bekritiseerd, maar lijkt gunstig te zijn geweest voor de belangrijkste Nederlandse
uitvoerproducten. De prijs die ervoor moest worden betaald lijkt redelijk. En
aangezien de Duitse regering op haar beurt ook in haar handelen werd beperkt door
de Rijksdag, heeft het er alle schijn van dat de Nederlanders wel degelijk welwillend
waren behandeld. Aangezien de onderhandelingen voor het handelsverdrag al in een
vroeg stadium overlapten met die over de Duitse voorkeurstarieven voor
treinvervoer naar de Duitse Noordzeehavens, onderhandelingen die tot een hoog
oplopend conflict leidden, valt deze uitkomst dan ook alleszins mee. De Duitse
spoorwegen hadden op Belgisch verzoek deze tarieven ook aan hen verleend,
waardoor de Rotterdamse haven zich in een ongunstige positie bevond. In de
onderhandelingen wilden de Nederlanders niet alleen gelijkstelling met Antwerpen,
maar ook met de Duitse havens. Al in de zomer van 1924 werd er gedreigd met
moeilijkheden over de kredietverlening, en dreigden de diplomatieke relaties te
bekoelen. In de zomer van het volgende jaar was de zaak nog steeds niet opgelost.
De President van De Nederlandsche Bank, Gerard Vissering, dreigde daarom de
financiering van de Duitse handel te beperken, en de Nederlandse banken te
instrueren hun kredieten aan Duitse klanten op te zeggen. De Duitsers waren al deze
tijd bereid te praten over gelijkstelling met België, maar niet met betrekking tot de
Duitse havens. Zelfs het dreigement van Vissering, dat tot grote ongerustheid leidde
in Duitse regeringskringen en leidde tot persoonlijke gesprekken tussen Vissering en
de Duitse rijkskanselier Hans Luther, de minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Gustav
Stresemann, en vele andere vooraanstaande Duitsers, leidde niet tot een
verandering in het Duitse standpunt. Vissering had de Nederlandse machtspositie
339
overschat: in 1925 had Duitsland volop toegang tot de financiële markten van
Londen en New York, en had Duitsland als de nood aan man kwam da handel via
deze centra kunnen financieren. Pas toen in december 1925 het handelsverdrag
tussen beide landen werd getekend, beloofden de Duitsers – zonder compensatie te
eisen – dat Nederland binnen acht maanden hetzelfde zou worden behandeld als
België. Toen dit gebeurde, werd dit gedaan door de voorkeurstarieven voor België in
te trekken. Het is opvallend, dat de Nederlandse Spoorwegen zich in de zaak op de
achtergrond hielden. Voor hen was de zaak een kwestie van transportbeleid, zoals
ook Nederland soortgelijke tarieven kende.
Vanaf 1927 had de Duitse landbouw sterk te lijden onder der wereldwijde
landbouwcrisis, en de Duitse regering zag zich gedwongen de Duitse markt te
beschermen. Aangezien ook de markt voor industriële producten en voor
grondstoffen steeds verder werd afgesloten, leidde dit tot toenemend ongenoegen
in Nederland. De uitvoer naar Duitsland bleef echter toenemen, waardoor dit
ongenoegen geen consequenties had. Pas toen in 1929 de uitvoer naar Duitsland van
het belangrijkste Nederlandse exportproduct, boter, werd bedreigd door een
tariefverhoging, keerde de Nederlandse publieke opinie zich tegen Duitsland. In de
zomer van 1930 leidde een massale Nederlandse boycot van Duitse producten tot
actie van de kant van de Duitse industrie. De lobby van de Duitse export-industrie
bleek krachtiger dan die van de landbouwsector, en de tariefverhoging ging niet
door. Enkele maanden later zegevierde de landbouwsector alsnog, en werden er
import quota’s ingesteld. De echte problemen ontstonden dus pas, toen de Duitse
economie in crisis geraakte en de Duitse invoer van Nederlandse luxe-producten
zoals boter met of zonder tariefsverhogingen of import quota’s zou afnemen. Tot
dan toe, zolang het in hun belang was en de kosten niet te hoog waren, stelde de
Duitse regering zich welwillend naar de Nederlanders op. Hoge invoerrechten waren
een accommodatie van de belangen van de landbouwsector, die werd afgewogen
tegen de exportbelangen van de industrie. Vanwege de economische crisis en de
afname van de uitvoer was dit tegen het einde van 1930 een luxe die de Duitsers
zich niet langer konden veroorloven.
Zoals eerder reeds gezegd, waren politieke relaties die niet direct verband
hielden met de economische banden tussen beide landen schaars. Toen Nederland,
340
dat zich direct na de oorlog aanvankelijk in een politiek isolement bevond door haar
neutraliteit en de asielverlening aan de voormalige Duitse keizer, uit dit isolement
kwam, hielp het Duitsland uit het isolement te halen. Dat niet alleen, Nederland
lobbyde in het buitenland voor kredietverlening aan Duitsland, en lobbyde bij de
Engelse regering tegen de Ruhrbezetting door Franse en Belgische troepen. Al deze
acties waren in laatste instantie ingegeven door de Nederlandse economische
belangen. Zelfs in de onderhandelingen over oorlogsschade en het grensgeschil over
de Eems speelden economische motieven een rol. Ieder aspect van de politieke
verhoudingen tussen Nederland en Duitsland was doordrongen van de economische
banden tussen beide landen.
Conclusies
Na de oorlog werden de ec banden juist sterker. Dit gold voor alle gebieden van de
economie: in de handel, het transport, de financiële dienstverlening, overal nam het
belang van Nederland voor Duitsland – en vice versa – sterk toe.
Dit belang voor Duitsland was echter vooral een belang voor het Ruhrgebied. Het
belang van de industrie van het Ruhrgebied voor de Duitse economie, en de
effectiviteit van hun lobby in Berlijn, bepaalde hoe Nederland werd behandeld. Het
gebruikelijke analytisch kader waarin de relaties tussen staten doorgaans worden
bestudeerd biedt hier dus geen uitkomst. In plaats daarvan gaat het om de invloed
die de belanghebbenden op de regering kunnen uitoefenen. Op verschillende
momenten en uit verschillende overwegingen werd de invloed van de exportindustrie tenietgedaan, bijvoorbeeld in het geval van de voorkeurstarieven voor de
Duitse Noordzeehavens en de bescherming van de landbouwsector. De NederlandsDuitse politieke verhoudingen tussen 1918 en 1931 lijken daarom de liberale
interdependentietheorieën te ondersteunen, met het voorbehoud dat het beleid dat
deze verhoudingen creërde het resultaat was van de interactie tussen de regering en
verschillende belangengroepen. Hoewel twee staten economisch van elkaar
afhankelijk kunnen zijn, is het in laatste instantie de machtsbalans tussen de
belangengroeperingen binnen iedere staat die bepalen hoe beide staten met elkaar
omgaan. Daarom spelen de economische structuur en de geografische spreiding van
economische activiteiten binnen beide staten een grote rol in dit proces.
341
Curriculum Vitae
Jeroen Euwe was born on 21 October 1968 in Vlaardingen, Zuid-Holland. He studied
history at Utrecht University, specializing in Art Management and Policy. During his
studies, he fell under the spell of the theatre. After having learned the basics of
lighting and sound engineering at the Utrecht University Theatre, he became a
theatre technician. Having gained experience with traveling shows and as an inhouse technician, he returned to the University theatre, where he instructed
students on the technical aspects of theatre. When the demands of the job were
alleviated with the recruitment of additional personnel, he resumed his study of
history. Until then, his interest was mainly in cultural history. A course by Hein
Klemann on the Dutch economy during the Second World War would change his
outlook dramatically. From now on, his research interests became firmly focussed on
economic history. He wrote his doctoral thesis on the Dutch art market during the
Second World War under the supervision of Hein Klemann, who was instrumental in
later publishing the result as a book. Since October 2006 he has been a PhDcandidate at Erasmus University Rotterdam, working on a project called ‘DutchGerman relations after the Great War: interwoven economies and political détente,
1918-1931’. The central question of this project is which changes occurred in the
economic relations between the Netherlands and Germany in the period 1918-1931,
and how this – together with (international) political changes – influenced the
relations between the two countries. This research is part of his promotor Hein
Klemann’s larger project entitled The Netherlands and Germany 1870-2000:
Economic interdependence versus sovereignty, financed by the Nederlandse
Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (The Netherlands Organization for
Scientific Research, NWO). Although the scope of his interests his wide, Jeroen’s
main interests are Dutch-German relations, Weimar and Nazi Germany, the First and
Second World War, (Dutch) art policy, and the art market.
342
Publications
Book:
-
De Nederlandse Kunstmarkt 1940-1945 (Boom 2007) 180pp.
Articles in edited volumes:
-
‘Le marché de l´art aux Pays-Bas de 1940 à 1945’, in Agnès Callu, Patrick
Eveno and Hervé Joly (eds.), Culture et médias sous l’Occupation. Des
entreprises dans la France de Vichy (Paris 2009);
-
‘Amsterdam als Finanzzentrum für Deutschland, 1914-1931’, in Hein A. M.
Klemann and Friso Wielenga (eds.), Deutschland und die Niederlande.
Wirtschaftsbeziehungen im 19. und 20. Jahrhundert (Münster 2009);
-
‘Financing Germany. Amsterdam’s Role as an International Financial Centre,
1914-1931’, in: Patrice Baubeau and Anders Ögren (eds.), Convergence and
Divergence of National Financial Systems: Evidence from the Gold Standards,
1871-1971 (London 2010).
Article in double-refereed journal:
-
‘The Rhine: backbone of Dutch-German economic interdependence 19191933’, in: Jahrbuch für Wirtschaftsgeschichte / Economic History Yearbook
2012/1 (Berlin 2012) 205-233.
Selected papers presented at international conferences and workshops:
-
EBHA – 12th Annual Conference: Transactions and Interactions – The Flow of
Goods, Services and Information (Bergen, 21-23 August 2008)
‘Amsterdam’s role as an international financial centre in Dutch-German
economic relations, 1914-1931’;
-
Zentrum für Niederlande-Studien der Westfälischen Wilhelms-Universität
Münster: Deutsch-niederländische Wirtschaftsbeziehungen im 20.
Jahrhundert (Münster, 12-13 June 2008)
‚Amsterdam als Finanzzentrum für Deutschland, 1914-1931’;
343
-
VIIIe colloque du Groupement de recherche 2539 du CNRS: Culture, presse et
entreprises sous l’Occupation. Vecteurs d’idées, médiateurs d’information?
(Caen, 27-28 March 2008)
‘Le Marché de l’Art en Hollande, 1940-1945’;
-
Paris School of Economics & IDHE: Financial centres as competing clusters
(Paris, 30 January 2008)
‘Amsterdam as an international financial centre, 1914-1933: a consequence
of interwoven economies?’;
-
2nd Transnational Rhine Conference: The Coal-based Rhine Economy.
Development of an Industrial Region from Basel to Rotterdam, 1850-1950
(Goethe University: Frankfurt am Main, 2010, 25-27 November 2010)
‘The Rhine; Backbone of Dutch-German Interdependence 1918-1933’;
-
Erasmus Research Institute of Management, Research Seminar (Rotterdam, 4
April 2011)
‘The Rhine; Backbone of Dutch-German Interdependence 1918-1933’.
344